Jump to content

Talk:Atlanta Braves/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Cy Young

Maddux won 3 with the Braves. The one in 1992 was with the Cubs. I don't see what could be clearer than that. Yes, the Cubs bailed on him, or all 4 might have been with the Cubs. So it goes. But he did not win a Cy Young for the Braves in 1992. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the point Jeff and I have been trying to make. The point of the section is that three pitchers won six Cy Young awards while pitching FOR with the Atlanta Braves. Last I looked, Wrigley FIeld was not the Braves' home park. - BillCJ (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey i am the culprit. Sorry for the miscommunication, I am a Braves fan and have always seen the streak at 4 years. I have never seen 1992 left out regardless of the context it is in. In my opinion, 1992 can be added in without taking away from the point of the commentary, which is why i worded it the way i did. Since it was 4 consecutive, leaving out one year just doesn't cut it for me. That may sound homerish, but i can't help it? :) Enjoisktboarding (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, i know that greg maddux won 4 cy youngs with two different teams, i am a FAN, but your wording is just atrocious.. Enjoisktboarding (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

He had a personal streak of 4 years. The Braves did not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to accommodate Skt's desire to mention that Greg Maddux had four consecutive Cy Youngs wins, and was wordy on purpose. If you'll quit messing with it, I'll go back to the wording that the other two editors used. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. Alos, this page is an overview of the Braves, not of Greg Maddux - the fact he won 4 Cy Youngs in a row is not as important here, because the page is not about him. - BillCJ (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

that's actually not a very good assessment. if i'm a fan, naturally i'm going to want to make changes. whats the point of editing if it's something you're not even interested in? i'm not going to go ape shit editing a dallas cowboy page, because i could care less about them. awhile back you mentioned me making much ado about nothing.. well it seems that each time i edit it, someone just has to change it.. so you all are just as guilty as me in that regard. If i don't like the wording, naturally i'm going to want to fix it to my liking. I wouldn't agree that the particular section is an overview of the braves, it is actually a brief overview of the PITCHER, Greg Maddux during a stint WITH the Braves. I think that to a casual fan new to the game, his 4 in a row is important. and thats my .02 Enjoisktboarding (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and during his stint with the Braves he won 3 Cy Young awards. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

you're breakin' my balls here doc, breakin' my balls.. Enjoisktboarding (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Braves-Mets rivalry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Braves-Mets rivalry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braves-Mets rivalry. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BillCJ (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

1994

It's misleading to make the flat statement that they finished second. They were in second place at the time of the strike, but there are no meaningful "final" standings. The next logical step would be for someone to argue that their consecutive division win streak was broken by the 1994 situation (as some have tried to do in the past). But that's not the case. There were no championships to be had in 1994, so no streaks were broken. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Surely the wording in the table is a good compromise now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I had to change it back to what you had, after the IP tried to rub it out. That's why I wrote this little essay, to point them to it in case they try it again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Right. I understand and agree. Your comments are good for future reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not misleading at all to make the flat statement they finished 2nd. When the season ended abruptly, they were indeed in 2nd place. You are making a personal interpretive view of the matter. There ARE meaningful "final" standings for the 1994 season. Every baseball historical site lists them as the final standings. Just because you personally do not recognize it as such doe not make it so. For example, I personally consider the Expos as the 1994 Eastern Division Champions. But my interpreting the 1994 season that way does not make it so. MLB decreed there were no division champions that year. That doesn't mean the Braves did not finish the season in 2nd place. As is shown everywhere, including the Braves own web site. It IS misleading to say they won 14 division titles in a row. That implies that streak was not broken. When indeed it was. By the 1994 season and strike. One could say the won the 14 MLB recognized division titles in a row. But then you would have to explain that MLB did not officially recognize a winner for the 1994 season. To say that 1994 did not count would not be factual as well. All stats for players counted. Pitchers got wins. Those wins counted in the standings. I have always been willing to find wording that works for all. Lets work this out.MAL01159 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

14 vs. 11 dispute

I think it's time to protect the page, and pursue an ANI or more agaist the single user who refuses to discuss his issues. He has a history going back to at least Feb 2007, and still would not discuss this. The sources and consensus support the version previous to his disruptions, yet they continue. Admin intervention is needed, but I won't have the time to file anything for several hours. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

His latest attempt, to say they won "14 out of 15", confirms my suspicions of what his agenda is. The Braves won 14 in a row. 1994 does not count, because there were no championships to be had. The stats count, but the standings don't. They are just an interesting record of how the teams stood when the season ended. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The only agenda here is the facts. You have not been civil in this discussion. You have refused to answer questions. You have threatened me with banishment. You have ignored attempts at compromise. You have ignored pleas for input from other parties. You have ignored authoritative sources presented. It has essentially been your way or the highway. You have not acted in a manner consistent with what is written on the disputes page. (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes) I am perfectly willing to alter the wording to something that will satisfy all. I have used different wording in the edits and have even presented you with some for your input. All attempts have been ignored. The fact is that to say 14 in a row is misleading at best. An outright lie at worst. The Braves did not win in 1994. The 1994 season counted. The streak ended. The standings are everything. MLB could have just as easilly called the Expos division Champs in 1994. But they didn't. They said no one won. Since the Braves did not win a season that was played, the streak ended. Is there anyone else who is willing to talk about this dispute? Baseball Buggs clearly has made this personal.MAL01159 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to find a source that states the words "the 1994 season snapped the Braves streak". The Braves portion of MLB.com states explicitly that the streak is 14. You are putting your own interpretation on the standings chart of 1994. That is insufficient. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I have. MLB.com. ESPN.com. Baseball-reference.com. All are authoritative sources. I cannot help the fact that you choose not to perceive them as such. You are blatantly unwilling to discuss this issue. Since you are unwilling to discuss, I think we need other editors to enter into this who will.MAL01159 (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

State a specific URL, right here and now, where it says the words "1994 snapped the Braves division titles streak". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got one. Right here, if you scroll down to the bottom... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You're funny. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not constructive.MAL01159 (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's at least as constructive as repeating the same thing over and over again. :p --Jaysweet (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You have BaseballBuggs to thank for that. That's all he does.MAL01159 (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've asked the user for an authoritative source that states the words "1994 broke the Braves streak". He has yet to provide that. Meanwhile, we have the Braves' own words, unchallenged on MLB.com as far as I know, that the streak is 14, not 11. Since MLB is, in fact, the only authoritative source in this matter, then it's 14, whether you or I or anyone else disagrees. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I have done just that. Just because you refuse to accept MLB and baseball-reference as authoritative sources is not my doing. The Braves own website supplies conflicting data on the streak. Seems to me that at the very least can put up an official '?' to the entire thing.MAL01159 (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

MAL, please just produce, now, links stating your claim. And don't just make comments about what supposedly say is, link us directly to such a source. I just did an independant search through google, then googlenews, ALL links have the streak at 14. Just add what evidence you would have to overturn that, right here and now. I'm not sure how your claim can have validity until you do so. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor makes an interesting argument on my page that ironically supports my view on this:
The Braves timeline thing is akin to someone SAYING that there are three trees on a piece of property but then when you go out and count them yourself, you only see 2. The Braves themselves show a gap in the division title streak in their year by year results listing. At best it shows a conflict. I propose that you actually count them out yourself to get the true answer. I count 11. MAL01159 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Note he's putting his personal spin on it. That's called "original research" or "analysis", which is against wikipedia rules. If a guy says he has 3 trees and I think there are only 2, then maybe I overlooked something. What could it be? Maybe there's a tree hidden behind another tree. Maybe there's a seed in the ground that he's counting. Maybe he's got one growing in his house. Regardless, what's been overlooked is that it's his property, and if he says he's got 3, then that's what he's got unless a veriable source, not our own interpretration, states otherwise. So if MLB's stand is that the Braves streak is 14, then that's what it is, even if that does not square with our personal logic on the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Since people still seem to be talking past each other, I'll restate, for the sake of clarity, that the argument is not about whether the Braves won the divisional title in 1994. They did not. In fact no one did. There was none. We all agree that two contradictory things are true because of this: First, the Braves won all 14 divisional titles that were there to be won during the 15 year span we're talking about. Second, they won 11 titles, then they did not in 1994 (but they were not displaced), and then they won 3 more. The question isn't what they did or didn't do, but what word or words are correctly applied to those particular facts. The Braves call it a streak of 14 titles. They *use that word*. The Braves are surely a reliable source on this subject, so now we have at least one reliable source that calls it a 14-title streak. If we are going to describe the streak as being of another length - or at least loosen things up to acknowledge that the streak might have been 14, might've been 11, who knows - then we need another reliable source that says, "the Braves had a 11-season streak of divisional titles, broken by the 1994 strike", or words to that effect. A specific source that applies the word "streak" to the 11 titles, or which describes the streak as "broken" by 1994. *We* don't get to say what constitutes a "streak". The reliable sources do. JohnInDC (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't work. A person can SAY anything they want about trees on their property. But just because they SAY they have 3, doesn't mean they really do. You either trust they have 3 or you go and count for yourself. In this case, one can easily count the number of consecutive division titles themselves. The owner could say they have a sapling and is counting that, but that isn't a tree yet, is it? So it cannot be counted. They could say they were counting a shrub. But you know a shrub is not a tree. The property owner can say it's a tree till their dying breath. They would still be wrong.MAL01159 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)

To further the analogy... If we had a Wikipedia article entitled The Number of Trees in Bugs' Yard, and for whatever reason this was notable, and you had a photo of Bugs property showing it had only two trees, except that Tree Counts Illustrated, NTPN.com (the Numerology and Trees Programming Network), and MLT.com (Major League Treecountball) all proclaimed that there were three trees... well, as per WP:V and WP:OR, the article The Number of Trees in Bugs' Yard would have to say there were three trees. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually the better analogy to the guy with the trees is, he says he has three trees. You say he has two, plus a bush. He insists that it is a tree, that he planted the apple seed himself. Until you can get a botanist onto the property to examine what looks like a bush to you, it is a tree. In this case we are simply awaiting the arrival of the botanist. JohnInDC (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
What if one of the trees is actually a shrub. Shrubs are not trees. The shrub is 1994. There were no divisions won in 1994 and there for it is not part of the streak. If the Blue Jays had won the 1995 World Series they would have won three in a row. Kingturtle (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The "botanist" in this case could be SABR. However, the kicker is that SABR does not own the data. MLB owns the data. So if SABR says it's 11 and MLB says it's 14, then it's 14. FYI, it was 3 + 11. In any case, you're right that it's a semantics issue to a fair extent. The Giants had a 26-game winning streak during 27 games in 1916. There was a tie in the middle, i.e. "no winner", just as there was "no winner" in 1994. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
If SABR said it was 11 and the Braves said it was 14 then I think the disagreement would be worth noting. MLB and the Braves own the data but they don't own the language and if their characterization were to conflict with another source deemed reliable on the subject, I think the article would have to acknowledge it. To this point however we have seen no such contrary interpretation. JohnInDC (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Precisely, which is why both viewpoints are given in the discussion about Ty Cobb and the 1910 batting championship. If SABR were to explicitly claim the streak was 11 rather than 14, that would be worth pointing out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This is actually an important point: If any reliable source (even an unofficial source) were to have language putting the streak at 11, it might be worth noting (the context of the source would need to be taken into account per WP:UNDUE, but it would be something worthy of discussion for sure). Right now, we have zero sources with language putting the streak at 11. There is no discussion to be had.
Are we all in agreement, except for MAL? If so, I suggest we just ignore MAL and switch to WP:RBI mode. The relevant policies have been adequately explained, and there is nothing else to say. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, but if I have a row of three trees in front of my house, and in between the 2nd and 3rd tree there is a shrub, am I allowed to say, "I have three trees?" Or do I have to say, "I have two trees and another tree?" More importantly, what if the shrub is actually a juniper bush?
Oh wait... we just repeat what the reliable sources say without further interpretation. That makes things so much simpler! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
We can argue indefinitely about analogies, but the real situation at this article is that there are sources for the phrase "14 consecutive division titles" and, as yet, no sources have been provided for any other statement. Tables of figures have been provided, but to challenge the article as it stands, it is necessary to interpret those tables and to debate the meaning of terms such as "streak" and "consecutive", and such an argument, no matter how carefully made and logically consistent, is still original research, unless a source is provided making that argument. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


I was asked to produce links to support this. Here are two. http://atlanta.braves.mlb.com/atl/history/year_by_year_results.jsp and http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/. This data is relevant and official. There is nothing to put a personal interpretation on here. The Braves either won the division, or they didn't. The streak consists of each played season. 1994, weather you want to admit it or not was a played season. Now all one needs to do is make a count to see how many times the Braves finished the season 0 games back. Those were the seasons they were division champions. I only count 11. I would like to see what your sources are to show it being 14. I don't think we can use the Braves verbal history page because they contradict themselves on another one of the their own pages.MAL01159 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You continue to insist on your interpretation of what constitutes a "streak", and you continue to find nothing that explicitly says the words "1994 broke the streak". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not MY interpretation. It is the english language definition of "streak". I am also using that word the exact same way MLB uses it. You have still not presented any source to show it is 14 that is not in conflict with itself. You are the one who is stretching the definition of the word "streak" to include gaps. What have you got that is not in conflict with itself?MAL01159 (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, the point has been addressed, and no reliable source and/or Wikipedia editor has endorsed MAL's position. My advice at this point is to ignore further redundant comments (of course, if MAL comes back with new arguments/information, we would not be prejudiced against that) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Not true. There have been reliable sources presented. Multiple ones. There has also been nothing beyond the one link to the Braves verbal history section to say it was 14. And then, that data is contradicted on another one of their own web pages. If you can come up with something official saying that the record is indeed 14, then the discussion will be terminated on my end. But no one has come up with anything despite the multiple requests to do so. I seriously doubt you personally will look upon any information provided without prejudice. You haven't done that with the original information. You have also not been interested in trying to find wording that will satisfy all while still remaining factual.MAL01159 (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)"There is nothing to put a personal interpretation on here" I believe this is where you are incorrect. There are obviously two interpretations of this data as you can see in the lengthy discussion above. There are two interpretations, but they are not equal: one of the interpretations is sourced, and one interpretations of that data is not sourced (you have not sourced your "11" interpretation). "The streak consists of each played season" You have jumped to the conclusion that "the streak consists of each played season". If this was the definition of a streak, the sources would probably say differently. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say I have not sourced my data? I have. Many times. From multiple sources. There has only been one sourced bit of data used to say it was 14. And that "source" has been shown to be in conflict with itself. I keep waiting to see what else there is but no one has presented anything but their personal interpretation of what constitutes a "streak".MAL01159 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

BB, why are you going back to the Giants win streak? You said this already and I proved you wrong. According to the baseball almanac, the consecutive win streak record is 21. Not 26. The Giants have an "unbeaten" streak of 26. Not a consecutive win streak. 21-0 is a very different thing from 26-0-1.MAL01159 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
...but the real situation at this article is that there are sources for the phrase "14 consecutive division titles" and, as yet, no sources have been provided for any other statement. Hogwash. There are no sources that offer up that it was 14 without being in conflict with itself. I have provided two sources here and 4 to baseball buggs. If you have one that is not in conflict with itself, please provide it.MAL01159 (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am of course interested in coming to an agreement here that will satisfy all. Why can we not come up with wording that reflects the Braves history as it really happened, without misleading the readers and that will satisfy all? For example, I am OK with saying the streak was 14, provided that there is an appropriate explanation explaining how a team could have a streak of 14 division titles in 15 years while still winning at both ends. Just saying "not counting the strike year" doesn't cut it. It makes it sound like someone is trying to make the streak sound greater than it really is. It sounds like a schoolyard thing. Why can't we work on the wording here?MAL01159 (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier SABR was brought up. I went there and could find nothing on the Braves streak. Is it too much to ask for a link or URL to whatever is there that supports the streak being 14?MAL01159 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So if MLB explicitly says "it's 14" or "it's 11", then that's what it is. Taking this off that other person's talk page and here where it belongs... That's the thing. MLB DOESN'T say it is 14. Nowhere have I found MLB saying the record is 14. On the flip side, I see nothing saying it is 11 either. All you have is the Braves mentioning it in passing on their verbal history page, but in their year by year results, it is shown to be 11. Not 14. What does MLB say is the official record for consecutive division titles? Do you have a link to that? If so, that would end the discussion. If not, we need to discuss the wording of the article.MAL01159 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the article is fine, and so far unrefuted by any source that makes any explicit statement about consecutive division titles. Regarding the Giants, the Elias record book states that the record for "Most Wins, Consecutive, Season" is 26, by the Giants of 1916; it also states that the record for "Most Wins, Consecutive, Season (no ties)" is 21, held by my very own 1935 Cubs. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The wording is not fine. It contains errors and misconceptions. As proved by the Braves own web site and countless other baseball historical records. The mere fact that the consecutive wins record is divided into "ties OK" and "no ties" is exactly the same reason the alleged 14 consecutive division titles needs to be reworded to reflect accuracy and prevent misconceptions.MAL01159 (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In the 2005 section, it says the Braves won the Eastern Division for the 14th consecutive time. What is the "authoritative source" for that? If they won the East 14 times, they would have had to won it every year they were in the east, including the 1994 season that we have all agreed produced no official winner. Or am I making yet another "personal interpretation" of the table data?MAL01159 (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am about to repair this. Any objections?MAL01159 (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. State your exact wording HERE first, before fomenting an edit war. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
All that needs to be done is change the 14 to 11. You want to do it? But I'm still wondering, am I making another "personal interpretation" of the facts?MAL01159 (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That's incorrect, as you've had explained to you 100 times. And please add to the bottom of the discussion instead of the middle. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It is? If it was, that means the Braves won the east from 1994 (their first year there) through 2007. Who won the East last year according to you? Read the opening line to that segment again and come back to tell me it't incorrect.MAL01159 (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs et al, please do not continue this discussion

MAL, to his credit, has not edited the article itself in two days. At this point, there is no reason to rehash the arguments that have already been made. There is clear consensus here, so let's move on. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a second. He may be on to something, in his response to the 26 vs. 21 issue. There could be a distinction made between "division titles" and "first place finishes". The Braves could be argued to have had 3 + 0 + 11 first place finishes, and also 14 consecutive division titles. If they happened to have finished first in 1994, they would then arguably have 15 consecutive first place finishes - but still only 14 consecutive division titles. Follow? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Solution

Okay, here is a solution that no one can deny and hope each side can live with. The Braves made 14 consecutive play off appearances. Can both sides please live with this solution? Kingturtle (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me. Provided that it is pointed out that there were no playoffs in 1994 at the same point the 14 playoff appearances were mentioned.MAL01159 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It could go something like, 'Since the post season in 1994 was canceled, the Braves made 14 straight post season appearances.' Or something like that.MAL01159 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That has already been covered. It should also be pointed out / reinstated that the 14 is "unprecedented". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It is important to say that the 14 consecutive postseason appearances is the all-time record, but I want a citation to verify the claim. Kingturtle (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's where, ironically, the red-link's citing of standings could come into play. However, I'm not hung up on the "unprecedented" part, although I'm sure ESPN or somebody would have commented on it in 2005 sometime. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the very same reasoning ("there were no playoffs in 1994") leads right back to the original conclusion that they won 14 consecutive division titles ("no division title awarded in 1994"), it's fine. It *feels* a bit better! JohnInDC (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the argument seemed to be about what constitutes a division title. This solution closes that debate. Kingturtle (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused. Isn't their the same perceived problem with the solution, i.e, there were no playoffs in 94, so they didnt make the playoffs, streak was broken. I'm not seeing the difference (though I disagree with both sentiments). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No, they are different. The argument was about whether 1994 strike-ended season broke the streak of division titles or if that season doesn't count because it was never completed.
Since there were no playoffs in 1994 then one cannot make the argument that the Braves did not make the playoffs. There were no playoffs to make. Kingturtle (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Nor were there any division titles to be had. You might be right - it's the same dilemma. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
But that was not determined until AFTER the season was played and completed. MLB could have just as easily decided the teams in first at the time of the strike would be division champions. Just like the teams in first at the time of the strike in 1981 were officially called "first half division champions".MAL01159 (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they could have. But they didn't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Either way, the streak was broken because an official season was played where the Braves did not win the division.MAL01159 (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither did anyone else win. There was nothing won. It's like the Giants 26-game win streak in 1916, with an intervening "no-winner" game. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter than no one won. The fact is the Braves did not. That is all that is need to end the streak. Just like the Giants 26 game streak is not the official record for consecutive wins. It is the Cubs 21 game streak.MAL01159 (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got news for you - the Giants' 26 game streak is the official record. Elias Sports Bureau is the official statistician of Major League Baseball. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not have too much of an objection to the word "unprecedented". I personally agree with it even for 11 in a row, although it's use provides an undue emotional reaction to the event when I was under the impression that the article should just be sticking to the facts. But, saying "no division titles awarded in 1994" does not cover it. If you say that, then it undermines the 14 consecutive claim. As it proves the streak was broken in 1994. Different text must be used.MAL01159 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually gonna disagree with KingTurtle and think we keep it the same as it was, which is more descriptive of what happened and properly sourced. Maybe further look into the word "unprecendented". Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a compromise here. Each side has to be willing to let go a little. Kingturtle (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and that reasoning ("there were no playoffs in 1994") does NOT lead one to the conclusion that they won 14 in a row. It leads one to the conclusion that they won 14 out of 15. Especially considering that the 1994 season counted in every way imaginable.MAL01159 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No, they won 14 out of 14. There was nothing to be won in 1994. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Both sides are being really stubborn here. I am proposing a solution that both sides might not love, but that both sides can live with. Without such a solution, this tireless debate will have no end. Kingturtle (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording as of this moment looks fine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
To you. But to someone who is interested in the full and complete story of the Braves history, it doesn't work.MAL01159 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If there was nothing to be won, then why did they play a season and why did all the stats count? The players were playing to try to win something.MAL01159 (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Trying to win and winning are not the same thing. In a tied game, the stats count. This was essentially a "tied" season - no team won anything. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, then there would be two records like the consecutive wins record. But I have found nothing like that anywhere. It is more like a game halted due to rain in the 7th inning. With one team with a 6 run lead.MAL01159 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not, because such a game would have a winner. 1994 produced no winners. Hence it's equivalent to a tied game. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. MLB could come in at any time and say that there was no winner in a rain shortened game where one team was leading. And even if the game were called an official tie, that would put an end to any consecutive game winning streak. Any future wins would be part of an "unbeaten" streak. Which is what a winning streak that includes ties is.MAL01159 (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the reasoning but I do not object to the proposed language and if that is what is required to lay this all to rest, it's fine with me! JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If 14 consecutive MUST be used for some undocumented reason, then it would be best if it is 14 when interrupted by a strike shortened season. And 11 for standard complete seasons.MAL01159 (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat as John, and do agree that KingTurtle has been helpful here. My only issue is that I think the edit worsens the article, ableit slightly, because of a single editor who disagrees with it. I understand this is about consensus and agreement, but are their really two "sides" to the issue? Has anyone outside of MAL ever disagreed with the way we have the info? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
MAL has a valid point. There are definitely two sides to this issue. Kingturtle (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will help, or maybe not. Allow me to quote from the 2006 Sporting News Baseball Guide, p.162: "The Braves won the N.L. East crown for the 11th year in a row. Leaving aside the incomplete 1994 season, Atlanta has now won an unprecedented 14 straight division crowns." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That works, if you add "when interrupted by a strke" to the end.MAL01159 (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Why be redundant in the same sentence? Although you could use that quote and say "the incomplete [strike-truncated] 1994 season". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
For one thing, there are redundancies all over the article. One more isn't going to hurt. Especially if it hammers home the point that it is 14 when interrupted by a strike, and 11 consecutive.MAL01159 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I like that Bugs. MAL, I think that is a good compromise. It acknowledges the incomplete 94 season and allows the reader to interpret as they please. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying consecutive postseasons is more impressive than consecutive divisions, because divisions are only 38 years old, wherease postseasons are over 100 years old. Kingturtle (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But isn't it less descriptive? Postseasons means they could have entered through the wild card, though they didnt. They won the division each time. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the Braves oganization claims they have won 14 consecutuve "division titles", which is what the source from the Braves site states, along with the announces, the maganger, and the former general manager (from on-air statements and interviews). No one has yet provided any official MLB source to show that the calim is wrong, nor has anyone even provied a sportswriter's article (blogs aren't considered reliabel) showing an alternate view. This "compromise" is based on one user's opinion and interpretation of standings, nothing else. The problem with using playoff appearances is that since 1994/95, wildcards have made the playoffs, so division titles is a different thing now. The issue here for me has always been reliable sources, not my opinion, as can be seen in the previous discussions from a year and a half ago. At that point, I did not have an official-type source, and was willing to accept whatever the MLB or Braves organization said. We then found the quote frm the Braves site, and other references in medie to the streak. However, we are STILL waiting for something reliable or official which contradicts the Brave's claim. If we find one, we can include that in the text along with the Braves' claim, or as a footnote. But tossing out a source because of one user's original research and synthesis is ridiculous. - BillCJ (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
[This was supposed to be here, and may be moot at this point - or not - see below] The wording prior to this morning was "From 1991-2005, the Braves were one of the most successful franchises in baseball, winning their division title an unprecedented 14 consecutive times in that period [citation from Braves mlb site here] (omitting the strike-shortened 1994 season in which there were no official division champions)." That's effectively restating exactly what the 2006 baseball guide stated, and it covers all the bases. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem here. Because the Braves own year by year history on their own web site contradicts what they have written in words. So does EVERY other historical account of what happened. There is no opinion here. Just facts. The 'interpretation' you describe is based on the interpretation that a consecutive division title streak can continue, even though no division title was won. There is no official notice saying the record is 14. At least, no one hear has found one. What we are working with are the results from each season. There is no interpretation to be made. Either the Braves won the division in a played season that counted (continuing the streak) or they did not win the division in a played season that counted (ending the streak). This is really pretty cut and dry.MAL01159 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't contradict. It's your interpretation of it that's the contradiction. The only sources anyone has found all say the same thing - 14 ignoring the 1994 season. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I found an MLB source. Scroll down to the chart titled Most consecutive division titles. Kingturtle (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And here. Kingturtle (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
YWait... You are aware that the following note appears on your sources... "This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs"?MAL01159 (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
God MLB is so lame. They really have no control over their sport. Well, at least the first source doesn't have such a disclaimer. Kingturtle (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should return to the wording prior to this morning, as per my note a little ways above. It states all the facts in one sentence, in a manner similar to the various citations. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but can you use this reference instead of the braves.mlb.com reference? It just makes it seem less POV. Kingturtle (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Or you could use both. Two independent sources making the same claim. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The disclaimer means it's not necessarily an official MLB position, but the source is published, and fist the definition of "reliable sources" the WP policy proscribes. Mal, all we need now is an equivalent published column/story that offers a differnt view, and we can include it. There must be at least one writer somewhere that disagrees with the streak as 14. As I just said above, I've always been open to that, However, if we find an "official MLB source" that weighs in on this, whatever it says, that's settles it for me, and I've always been for that too. - BillCJ (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
There is. I have showed you the offical year by year results from multiple sources. You need to show some kind of official record saying the streak is 14. Not just the opinion of some writer that MLB feels the need to put a legal disclaimer on.

PS: My sources don't have legal disclaimers. They are undisputed factual data.MAL01159 (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

With your own spin as to what those datapoints mean. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What spin could there possibly be? When you look at the standings each day, do you spin them in some way to put a team that is not in first place into first?MAL01159 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Mal, you've been making the same arguments for days now and you haven't persuaded anyone. This is growing tedious and you should stop. Please! JohnInDC (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Er....this source is from MLB and has no disclaimers. Kingturtle (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it does. All the way at the bottom. JohnInDC (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Nonetheless, it's a published source. The only contradiction so far is the Yankees' spin on it, as noted below. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You say "spin". But one could claim that saying 14 is Braves "spin".MAL01159 (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, this blog post quotes a NY Times article that suggests that the 2004 Yankee media guide tried to revise history on this issue. Kingturtle (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You have just found gold. I have a hard time finding stuff like that on the web for some reason. That article supports my case that saying 14 straight is, if not an outright lie, absolutely misleading. And needs to be clarified as such.MAL01159 (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Fools' Gold, unfortunately. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources - see WP:SPS. Come up with something authoritative and present it. Until then can we *please* just let this go? JohnInDC (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It references a New York Times article. Why does that not count?MAL01159 (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I have presented plenty of authoritative articles. I ask you, what "authoritative article" do you have that says the Braves won the Eastern Division 14 times in a row? As it says in the 2005 section of the Braves article?MAL01159 (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Blogs are not considered Reliable sources, though the Yankee's media guide would be. But it doesn't prove the 14-streak is wrong or a lie, just that not everyone agrees with it. Cite the media guide in a footnote, assuming we can find a direct link or quote. - BillCJ (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm just saying at this point that if you want to say it's 14, then explain that the 14 was broken by the 1994 season. A season that apparently the Braves don't count for the division title streaks, but do for Cy Young winning streaks.MAL01159 (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You can't say "broken". Then it's two streaks. You can say "interrupted". (Like the article already says.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)\
If you say "interrupted" then it is two streaks as well. And even so, it doesn't explain HOW a season where the Braves did not win means a streak could continue.MAL01159 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, in the 2005 section, it says the Braves were in the Eastern Division from 1991-1993. I can show you standings to prove they were not. But I guess that would be my own personal "spin" on the situation since there is no official documentation that actually has the words saying "in 1991, the Braves played in the NL West".MAL01159 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia note: Regarding post-season appearances vs. division titles - It's mathematically easier to make a post-season appearance than to win a division. It's also easier to win a division than to win a league championship. And it's also easier to win a league championship than a World Series. The sources say "division titles" (or championships), so that's what it should say. The question might arise, has anyone made more consecutive post-season appearances? Well, that could be researched, and I'm thinking "no", but it's not directly relevant, as winning the division is more impressive than qualifying for the post-season. Consecutive pennants? Consecutive World Series wins? Also not relevant, but the answer to both questions is 5, the Yankees of 1949-1953. The most consecutive pennants won since divisional play began is 4, the Yankees of 1998-2001. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

MAL, why are you still arguing? The mlb.mlb.com citation settles it. Kingturtle (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What mlb.mlb.com citation?MAL01159 (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The one that I keep citing to you. It is from mlb.com, has no disclaimer, and is not a braves.mlb.com page. Kingturtle (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That DOES have a disclaimer on the bottom as well. Someone else already mentioned it.MAL01159 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That NYT article

Here it is

(Note that the article was written in 2004, so the lengths of the streaks are shorter). We have a reliable source saying that, in 2004, the Yankees attempted to view the Braves' sequence of consecutive division titles (and post-season appearances) as interrupted, with a view to making their own achievements look better by comparison - but note that the NYT itself clearly does not agree with the Yankees' reasoning. In the absence of any more recent source, it seems that this effort fizzled out, and so I don't think that attempting to work this information into the article will really improve it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What they are failing to recognize is that there does not need to be another team to come in and interrupt a streak. In this case, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL interrupted the streak. Well, one could say that the MLBPA interrupted the streak.MAL01159 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sheffield, thank you for finding the actual article. The importance of the article is its reference to the Yankee media guide. We were trying to find something out there that protests the length of the Braves' streak. I think we can reference the NY Times article's reference to the media guide until we can get our hands on an old media guide. There's one for sale on eBay for under $10. Anyone want to get it?
As for the NY Times' mention of "so no other team interrupted the Braves' streaks", we can find loads of articles supporting the claim. We were hard pressed to find an official claim, but I think our mlb.mlb.com citation does it now. Kingturtle (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That is because no other TEAM did interrupt the streak. No on is disputing that. The MLBPA interrupted the streak when they went on strike that August. And MLB cemented it when they canceled the season and announced they would recognize no division champion from that season.MAL01159 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, a complete, unbiased, explanation of how a streak of 14 in a row could be possible over a 15 season span when the front and tail ends of that span are included. And it needs to be repeated EVERY time the consecutive division title streak is referenced. Put an asterisk next to the 14 every time with the explanation at the bottom if you must. But that explanation NEEDS to be there to clarify something that makes no sense.MAL01159 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It already is explained in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not. All it says is "not counting" and :"excluding" which doesn't explain anything. It only opens up more questions. Such comments also undermine the 14 consecutive streak to begin with.MAL01159 (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
There is, or should be, a link to the 1994 strike, if someone wants to read the whole megillah of what happened that year. It doesn't need to be restated in detail in this article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
But why present misleading information without explaining it right then and there? Why require the reader to make multiple clicks to get the final determination when I could be done right there?MAL01159 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the asterisk banter. There have never been asterisks in MLB official records. Kingturtle (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not misleading. It explicitly mentions the strike-shortened 1994 season and provides a link to it. You don't write a megillah in the lead. That's one of the wikipedia rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It IS misleading. It leads the reader wondering how there can be a complete streak of 14 titles over 15 seasons when a win was at the front and tail end of that stretch. It seems I need to repeat myself. Just saying "not counting the strike" or "with the exception of the strike" does not explain how a streak that was interrupted is considered to be intact.MAL01159 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Then they can click on the link and find out anything they want to know about it. That's the reason we have links, don'cha know. It says "omitting the strike shortened 1994 season." That's the explanation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That quick quote doesn't explain why that season should not be counted.MAL01159 (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You don't want a megillah in the lead. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't be. You simply put an asterisk next to the #14 each time the 14 division title streak is referenced. Then at the bottom of the article, you print the explanation one time. It doesn't need to take up lots of space.MAL01159 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
There have been. Commissioner Frick put an asterisk by the Roger Maris HR record. It was only removed some time in the '90's. But this isn't MLB anyway. It's Wikipedia. An asterisk is a perfectly acceptable way of referencing an explanation.MAL01159 (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No. There was never an "asterisk" on the Maris record. That was just a public comment or suggestion by Frick. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait... Why does the Maris Asterisk thing get deemed to be a popular misconception, but the Braves winning streak being 14 in a row not?MAL01159 (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The 14 is not a popular misconception, it's supported by verifiable sources. What verifiable source can you cite that actually says there was an asterisk? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
But it is. The only thing keeping it going is that many writers have claimed it. (Including the ONE source you constantly reference) Yet there is no official record stating the matter. Unless you have something that you haven't presented? Apparently the Yankee media guide doesn't buy into it, though.MAL01159 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"Many writers", yes, i.e. reliable sources. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"Many writers" have also spoken of the asterisk by Maris' single season HR record. Yet that is put up as a popular misconception. So it seems that only somtimes "many writers" can be used as a verifiable source. Sounds pretty inconsistent to me. But then, you are citing the Braves web page with is itself inconsistent.MAL01159 (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say about this, so apologies in advance if I can't put it neatly, politely and fairly. An editor making a logical argument on a Talk page about "why/how a reliable source is wrong" is usually a sign that the editor just doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, or is for some reason strongly attached to putting a particular point of view across. I suggest that MAL01159 reads Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Consensus. These policy pages are all important and relevant to this discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I have already looked over all those pages you reference and it is very obvious my behavior and discussions have fallen 100% into those explanations. The only page that is kind of scary is the consensus page. What that page essentially says is that if 4 out of 5 editors say 2+2=5, then it is a fact that 2+2=5. No matter what verifiable evidence is presented to say that 2+2=4.MAL01159 (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You have presented no veriable evidence that the Braves streak was broken. All you've presented is your opinion about what the standings mean. The Braves are a verifiable source. Our personal opinions on what the standings mean are not a verifiable source. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. There you go again. I have. And you know it. I find it interesting that you ignored the fact that the article says the Braves were in the Eastern division in 1991. What verifiable evidence do you have that says they were? I have evidence that shows they were in the west. But according to you, I am putting my "spin" on it.

There is no "opinion" on what standings mean. With all respect possible, please please stop repeating yourself. You are just taking this argument in circles.MAL01159 (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you have not. And if it says they were in the eastern division in 1991, then fix it. That information is easily verifiable in a hundred places. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I was going to. But you said not to because you told me, "That's incorrect". But what verifiable evidence do you have that actually says, in words, what division the Braves played in in 1991? I have standings that show it, but you would accuse me of putting my own personal spin on it.MAL01159 (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me offer the observations that MAL01159 has established himself as wholly indefatigable, and that he will continue to contest this point, marshalling whatever facts may be handy, for as long as anyone engages him on it. You cannot defeat him. The only thing you can do is stop. I recommend it. JohnInDC (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. At the risk of coming across as a bit crass, I apologize, but given the above comment it must be said. The comment you made is a two way street. Look to yourself before you start accusing others of the same thing.MAL01159 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It reminds me of a Christmastime debate I had with a bunch of Big Ten fanboys over the use of "competes in" rather than "participates in". I thought I was right, but consensus was for "competes in" (including for the Gophers, who went 1-11 last year), and consensus won. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahem. I was on the other side of you in that debate! JohnInDC (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That must be the reason I decided to stop debating. 0:) 0:) 0:) But the point is, I stopped. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That sort of thing is just semantics. I am discussing facts. Quite a different thing.MAL01159 (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It is about semantics. It's about who gets to define what a division titles streak is. One thing for sure - It's not you and me, it's the involved parties, namely the Braves and MLB. If they say it's a 14 title streak, then it was, even if you or I don't think so. And if the Big Ten says its teams all compete, then they do, even if you or I don't think so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not up to you or me. I am only going by what MLB themselves say. The Braves contradict themselves. MLB doesn't SAY anything on the matter, but their data supports the streak being 11. And The Yankees say it is 11.MAL01159 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing in the MLB site that states the words "1994 broke the division titles" streak. The standings don't say that. They say where the teams were when the season ended. They make no verbal statement about championships. But other places in MLB do. They say explicitly that it's 14. Nowhere in MLB does it say explicitly that 1994 broke the streak. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The Standings don't SAY it. They SHOW it. MLB doesn't say it. Not explicitly. They don't even hint at it. But they surely SHOW the streak to be 11. Yet you keep saying they do. Please provide a link to where MLB verifies it to be so.MAL01159 (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough discussion

Recap of the reliable source data

  • mlb.mlb.com A table containing the following information:- "Most consecutive division titles in Major League history / Atlanta Braves / 14 / 1991-2005"
  • atlanta.braves.mlb.com An article containing this text:- "... their remarkable, unprecedented streak of 14 consecutive division titles has come to an end."
  • nytimes.com A 2004 article about the Yankees including among other things:- "no other team interrupted the Braves' streaks"
  • atlanta.braves.mlb.com A table of results. Editors disagree about the intepretation of the data in this table, whether more than one interpretation is possible, and whether the data should be interpreted by editors
  • 2006 Sporting News Baseball Guide, p.162: "The Braves won the N.L. East crown for the 11th year in a row. Leaving aside the incomplete 1994 season, Atlanta has now won an unprecedented 14 straight division crowns." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the table in question is not endorsed by MLB. And have a disclaimer at the bottom of the article saying so.MAL01159 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the above cited NY Times quote is irrelevant. We are all in agreement that no team broke the streak.MAL01159 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please Note, there is only one way to interpret the tabular information. The Braves either won the division or they did not.MAL01159 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Third interpretation: It was neither. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Really? Did the Braves win their Division in the official and played 1994 season? Yes or no.MAL01159 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It was neither. They neither won nor lost the division. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Call it a draw. Like a tie in other sports do not end unbeaten streaks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
True, but while a tie does not break an unbeaten streak, it DOES stop a winning streak.MAL01159 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The evidence is against your claim. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary. The evidence supports the claim. As does the standard definition of the words, "unbeaten" and "winning".MAL01159 (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, no matter in any case. It's been proposed, and agreed, that we move on from this particular disagreement. Further discussion from here on is just noise. JohnInDC (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The 1994 season was to the Braves' record title streak what that tied game was to the Giants' record 26-game win streak in 1916: The stats counted, but the game did not. For 1994, the stats counted, but the season did not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. If it were, there would be a separate record for each case, like the 26 game UNBEATEN streak. The Cubs have a 21 game winning streak, which is the official record.MAL01159 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I have told you at least twice now that 26 is the official record, as per the Elias Sports Bureau, the official statistician for MLB. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the very first time you have brought up the Elias Sports Bureau. Got a link?MAL01159 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It's the third time (please note highlighting) and the book is orderable from their website. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
MAL, perform a text search on this page and you will see that Bugs said the same thing twice before this. Now please, please drop this discussion. You are beginning to tread on thin ice. JohnInDC (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I did. I found one place he mentioned it and I missed it. The format for these discussions actually enhances that possibility. So my bad missing it the first time. The book can be bought, but there is no record of it on line anywhere except the Baseball Almanac. (Which says the record is 21) Unless you, BB, have a copy of it but aren't sharing the data on the page for all to see. I fail to understand how I could be on thin ice. Please enlighten me.MAL01159 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I quoted the Elias text verbatim, earlier. Baseball Almanac is not an official source. Elias is. You are free to buy their book from their website if you don't believe me. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought you needed to prove such things? For all I, or anyone else here knows, you are making it up. If I claimed I went to a book store, looked it up and it says 11 with no strikes, and 14 with one I suspect you would require more than my just saying so. Scan the page and post it. If Elias says it it so, there is nothing more to be said on the matter.MAL01159 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The book is in print and readily obtainable through their website. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If you own it, post it. Put the issue to bed.MAL01159 (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not scanning copyrighted material. Buy the book if you don't believe me. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, note that nowhere does MLB actually officially make the claim the streak is 14. Also, the NY Times article nowhere states the streak is in fact 14.MAL01159 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please include the New York Yankee Media guide which is cited as saying the Brave streak "was" 9 at the time it was published, which would make the streak 11 today.MAL01159 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move on

I propose that a consensus has been reached, namely that the article should state that "the Braves have won 14 consecutive division titles", and that one editor refuses to accept this consensus. Please indicate below whether you agree or disagree. Please do not use this section to continue the debate; leave a very brief summary of your position if necessary.

Alternate wording

It seems we need to focus on hammering out wording for the article that will be acceptable to all. Let's go through the misleading bits one by one. At the top of the article, it reads, "...winning their division title an unprecedented 14 consecutive times in that period[3][4] (omitting the strike-shortened 1994 season in which there were no official division champions)." The two references are out of place as both articles have disclaimers saying "This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs." Next, something either needs to be done about the false number of 14, or the strike explanation in parenthesis. My choice would be to call it the appropriate 11 and get rid of the strike reference. However, there are some who think the number is 14. OK. But then the strike explanation makes no sense. It says there were no official champions which lead the reader to one of only two conclusions. There was no season played (which is false) or that since there were no champions the streak came to an end at that point. Proposal: Change the sentence to "14 out of 14 seasons where MLB officially recognized a division champion. (MLB did not officially recognize division champions for the 1994 strike season.)" I believe this works for all because it includes the #14 that some seem hung up on, and it clarifies how not winning the division could be perceived as not breaking the streak.MAL01159 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the earlier discussion was for weather or not it was 11 or 14. This is discussing altering the wording for the article to avoid the existing misleading nature of the claim. I am willing to do so. Why aren't you? I thought discussion and working out agreeable wording was a hallmark here. Last year we worked out agreeable wording. It got changed back sometime since. Why no discussion on that?MAL01159 (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What's this last year stuff? Your earliest edit was July 9, 2008. What was your previous ID? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This came up last year as well. You did not take part in that. We hammered out wording that worked for all. It seems that in the time since, that no one is interested in actually discussing alternative wording for articles any more.MAL01159 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither did you, at least not in your current guise. What was your ID at that time? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
MAL01159, in case you missed the section immediately preceding this one, a consensus has been reached, namely that the article should state that "the Braves have won 14 consecutive division titles". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do you fear/avoid discussing alternative wording? This does not seem to be a black or white issue.MAL01159 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, the year-by-year record already has an "asterisk" (i.e. a footnote) on the 1994 season explaining the situation with that unique season. The same footnote could be attached to the "14" if necessary. The lead paragraph itself does not need a long-winded explanation of the 1994 season - as everyone (minus one) seem to agree. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
But that asterisk does not explain the situation one bit. It only adds to the confusion. Also, the streak is mentioned at multiple times throughout the article. If that asterisk were placed at each point with an appropriate and crystal clear explanation, all would be settled. And no, not everyone. There have been at least two others who have claimed that alternative wording ought to be discussed. It would help if you do not speak in absolutes simply to serve your own purpose.MAL01159 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, then keep it the way it is. It's clear to everyone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
??? Your comment reads as if you never read the comment above it. If you keep it the way it is, it creates a confusion and makes things seem different than they really are. Hence, the reference to explain the situation. If you think the explanation is too long, then suggest an alternative that still conveys the factual situation. That is how agreements get hammered out.MAL01159 (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
MAL01159, in case you missed the section immediately preceding this one, a consensus has been reached, namely that the article should state that "the Braves have won 14 consecutive division titles". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Sheffieldsteel, there is no need to repeat yourself. How about it? Why are you against presenting the article in such a way that all can agree on? It was done before. Why not now?MAL01159 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Consensus does not require unanimous support. Indeed, attempting to reach consensus with an editor who is unwilling to accept the possibility of compromise, or that they might be mistaken, is often a waste of time. Having failed to convince anyone of your position, I recommend that you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that I am the one who is unwilling to compromise or that I may be mistaken? If so, then there is certainly misinterpretations of what I have wrote going on here.MAL01159 (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
He is saying that after extensive discussion and participation therein, seven editors (many of whom with no prior involvement with this page) achieved a consensus that the current wording was fine. You disagree with this. He says that a consensus can be achieved even when it is not unanimous; and that at some point trying to reach consensus with someone who is "unwilling to accept the possibility that . . . they might be mistaken" becomes a waste of time. Examining the record we see that despite repeated and lengthy attempts, stretching over several days, you failed to persuade even one other editor that you are correct and that the article needs to be changed. Indeed you seem unable even to acknowledge the fact of a consensus against it. So, yes. SheffieldSteel is talking about you. As he says, the time has come to stop beating the horse. It's not simply pining for the fjords - it is dead. Let it be. JohnInDC (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Then he is making a claim that is not verifiable. And bad form to accuse me of something I did not do at that. I was not attempting to "persuade" anyone. I was merely dealing with what is factual and what is verifiable. If there was a definitive source confirming what it really is, I'd like to see it. I would then admit my mistake and apologize. But as of right now, while there is nothing definitive, there is more to support the streak is 11 than there is to support it being 14.MAL01159 (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Mal, how can we compromise on the main statement? One side(Including the Braves organization itself) claims the Braves won "...their division title an unprecedented 14 consecutive times...", whole the other claims "the false number of 14". That is uncompromiseable - there is no wiggle room here. Since the threshold on WP is Verifiability, not "truth", the only available option is to cite reliable sources. We've done that, but you have not. Provide something reliable to present an opposing view, and will include it (as I proposed over a year ago!), but removing reliable sources that support the 14-in-15 claim is not an option. Hence, there is no compromise that either "side" will accept. Time to move on. - BillCJ (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure there is. It was done before. It can be done again. I have also explained how it could be done earlier. All one needs is a footnote explaining the strike situation every time 14 in a row is mentioned. No extra words except at the very bottom of the page. And no, the current comment about the season not counting doesn't explain it at all. In fact, it only leads to the confusion.MAL01159 (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Please provide diff's. And I disagree that there is any confusion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
(after edit conflicts) To MAL01159: My impression is that you cannot see any reasonable interpretation of the primary source (raw MLB data, e.g. the season standings table quoted on this page) that is different to your own; that because of this, you think that the secondary sources (the various cited articles from mlb.com and the New York Times) must be mistaken in their interpretation; that you believe the article must not say that "the Braves have won 14 consecutive division titles"; that you are willing to argue indefinitely for what you see as the truth. If this isn't your position, please say so. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not know what other "reasonable" interpretation there is apart from who was in first place when the season ended. Apart from 1981 and 1994, the team in first place is always crowned the division champion. There does indeed seem to be misinterpretation here. But it is on the end of those who read my posts. Sure, my preference is to call it 11. (And I have verifiable evidence to back that up) But after the obvious personal interpretation of what no winners means from others, I was, and still am, fully interested in coming to a conclusion that will at least be acceptable to all. I have bent a great deal in my position in accepting saying the streak is 14 provided an appropriate explanation is given explaining how that is possible. I do not seem to be getting the same courtesy in return.MAL01159 (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
MLB stated that no division title was to be awarded in 1994. If MLB had not made that decision, then the Braves would have been officially defeated and everyone would agree that their then-three-year streak was broken. But as it stands, there are two ways to interpret the 1994 results. Either the Braves did not win the 1994 division title, therefore their streak was broken, or there was no 1994 division title to win, so the streak could not be broken. It's true that they only won the title in 14 out of 15 years, but it's also true that they won all 14 of the 14 available division titles in those 15 years. The key point I'm trying to make is that either position is reasonable. Neither is absolutely flat out wrong, and both are consistent with the Braves being second place, six games behind, at the end of the 1994 season. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice summary. I hope it suffices. And if it doesn't I hope we can avoid yet another rehash of the arguments here. JohnInDC (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

MLB had a few options when they canceled the remaining games of the season. They either say the entire season does not count. Which would keep the Braves streak of three alive as there was officially no season played. They could anoint the teams in first place at the end of the season as division champions but have no playoff. Which would kill the streak at three. Or they could do what they did. Keep the season as officially played, but not recognize any team as division champion. Which also ends the streak as the Braves, nor anyone else, won an the division in an official season that was played to completion. It is true that they played in 14 consecutive post seasons in a row. It is also true that they won 14 consecutive divisions when MLB chose to recognize a division winner for the season. But to say they won 14 consecutive is misleading because there was a gap in that streak. All I am proposing is at the very least explain how a streak with a gap could be deemed as consecutive. Unless you want to change the words from "14 consecutive division titles in a row" to "14 consecutive division titles each year MLB recognized an official division champion." One could also say "14 consecutive post seasons." In either case, I still think it necessary to explain the situation in detail in one footnote.MAL01159 (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your statement, that MLB "[did] not recognize any team as division champion, which also ends the streak" - the first half of that statement is factual, the second half is strictly your personal opinion and interpretation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yet the same can be said about saying the streak was able to continue in the absence of a win. It is strictly your personal opinion and interpretation. MLB doesn't seem to have an official position on which interpretation they subscribe to. At least, not that anyone here has been able to provide.MAL01159 (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deja vu all over again. Sigh. The current language is sufficient to explain the unusual nature of the streak of 14. We have consensus on that. This discussion is - or *sure should be* - closed. Punto. JohnInDC (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Your "consensus" is based entirely on personal opinion and not on verifiable sources, however.MAL01159 (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Why bring Punto into this? :) My advice to y'all is the same as y'all's was to me: Don't answer him. Don't acknowledge anything he says, until or if he does something that looks like it has a chance to break the endless loop. The only way we can break it is by ignoring it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Which I intend to follow, as myself and youse guys have all gotten your licks in today, to no avail. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this alternative wording... Change what is in parenthesis from "omitting the strike-shortened 1994 season in which there were no official division champions" to "counting only seasons where MLB officially recognized a division champion". Which is shorter, more understandable and I am hoping all sides can live with.MAL01159 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording from a year ago...

...says virtually the same as it does now. No reason to change it. [1] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a section here called "Division Titles". After that discussion, alternate wording was put in place that was satisfactory to all. It was changed sometime after that, with no record of any discussion.MAL01159 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Please provide diff's of when these various changes occurred. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not know what section titled "Division Titles" he is reading, bugs, but in "Division championships", the consensus is clearly the same one were advocating here. An anon IP posted twice, and then was nvere heard from. My last post there was on "19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)", and it sounds very familar to what I've been writing here. On Feburay 15, 2007, there was only one unrelated edit; the contested text read: The Braves have won their division title 14 consecutive times beginning with 1991 and ending in 2005, omitting the strike-shortened 1994 season in which no division champions were officially crowned. There weere no changes to the section until this diff on 15:46, July 12, 2007 by an IP. I reverted on the 14th, and cited the Braves reference discussed above. On Jul 15, another IP made 2 edits (its only edits) to revert the section, and I restored it again. THose are the only edits to this section "a year ago", and no discussion or consensus took place anywhere about this issue on the talk page at that time. So, I am beginning to suspect a lack of good faith here, and as we have a consensus, perhaps it's time to move on. Changes to the article on this issue can be treated as disruptive, and handed off to an admin. - BillCJ (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No need to be nit picky. I think you know what section I was referring to. Stick to the idea at hand and not the typos and such, please. All I can tell you is that different versions of saying it were bandied about until one came up was OK for all. You have me ad a disadvantage as I have no idea how to go about looking at old changes and such.MAL01159 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
One more thing... Saying that the reason the streak is 14 was because there were no winners officially crowned in '94 makes no sense. If no one won, then the streak MUST end. That is why the explanation given needs to be altered.MAL01159 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
For help on readng article histories, see Help:Page history. It would be a good idea for you to learn to use the histories, just to be able to find anything from a previous version of an article. It's not that difficult to do, and the Help page should make it even easier. - BillCJ (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's just go with 14 with a parenthetical mention that no division title was awarded in 1994. Either that, or just state that they won all 14 division titles awarded for their division from 1991-2005. MAL01159 has just been trying to cause controversy. At first he claims that the streak was snapped in 1994 because they finished in 2nd place that year, even though no division title was awarded. Then, when someone proposes a solution that you use 14 consecutive playoff appearances, he replies with: "It could go something like, 'Since the post season in 1994 was canceled, the Braves made 14 straight post season appearances.' Or something like that." The standings he points to show that if the postseason were played based on the 1994 standings the Braves would have been in the postseason (Wild Card). It appears that even if Atlanta had finished 1st in the standings, he would not recognize the streak since nobody won the division that year. You know he is just trying to perpetuate an argument when he contradicts his orginal stance midway through the discussion.Failureofafriend (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You have it all wrong here. I have not been trying to cause controversy. I have been trying to make things clear and more accurate. Which I thought was the goal of the article. First, look through the discussion. No one proposed it read "14 consecutive playoff appearances". I have always said I could go with that because it would be accurate. The concept of who could have won the 'wild card' doesn't matter because there was no post season to begin with. Wild card teams don't "win" anyway. They are just an extra playoff team that didn't win anything during the regular season. You are correct that had the Braves been in first and MLB still did not recognize a division winner that the streak would still officially end. Although I suspect that the Braves would be calling it 15 if that HAD happened. But again, that is neither here nor there. The point here is that saying there was no division title awarded in 1994 creates a conflict. If there was no winner in a season that was officially played, how can the streak continue? The alternate wording I provided, while not explaining how not winning could mean the continuation of a winning streak, focuses instead on the fact that MLB did not officially recognize division winners that year. It moves away from controversy AND is a shorter sentence that the current one. It is a win win.MAL01159 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It is the same as the way a hitting streak doesn't end if the player misses a game (or plays a game without getting an at bat). If Player X went into a game with a 30 game hitting streak and sat out a game (or played only in the field, or even got plate appearences but always walked) the 30 game hitting streak remains intact. Even though a game was played and the player didn't get a hit.Rlendog (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. It is not like a player missing a game because the Braves did not miss the 1994 season. They played in it. It is more like a hitting streak where the game itself ends early due to rain. The streak still ends even though the player did not get his final AB. And the game with all its stats still count. But even then it is not exactly the same because the MLB decision to count the season but not recognize any division title had no precedence whatsoever. So it is ultimately difficult to equate it to some other game action. At this point, I am only interested in clearing up the explanation for how a winning streak could be allowed to continue when the team did not winMAL01159 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's exclude the player missing a game on the basis you state. There is still the situation where the player walks, gets hit by a pitch or sacrifices in all his plate appearances in the game. He could have swing at a pitch during the walk or HBP and hit the ball, or he could have beaten out the bunt. But it is recognized that the player did not get his full opportunity to get his hit, and so the game does not break the streak. The same with the Braves strike-shortened season. I can see the analogy with the rain-shortened game as well, but it is different. If the players only at bat in the rain shortened game is not completed then the streak would not end. Only if he had a complete at bat would the streak end. In the 1994 season there was not a complete opportunity to win the division, so the streak didn't end. Rlendog (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It's already covered. The article states the situation quite clearly, and has for at least a year. There is no need for a wording change that would result in a long, unreadable sentence when the whole situation is explained in detail elsewhere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If long sentences are a bad thing then my proposed change is a good thing. It is a shorter sentence, promotes a neutral view of the situation AND provides a much clearer view the 14 consecutive issue.MAL01159 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I just looked for the first time at the 1994 strike page. Nowhere in it does it explain the situation regarding how the season was declared an official season but no division titles were officially recognized. Nor does it explain how the Braves streak could continue under such circumstances. Nor does it mention what MLB's official position on the matter is. The last bit is understandable as no one has been able to determine what MLB's official determination on the matter is.MAL01159 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a non-issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Not so. You just said it the situation was explained elsewhere. Yet I just discovered that it is, in fact, not. Seems to me that the appropriate place for a clear explanation is on the Braves page. As it pertains only to the Braves.MAL01159 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a non-issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Repeating the same comment does not make it so. Please be constructive.MAL01159 (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Look who's talkin'. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil. If you wish to contribute, your input is welcome. If you wish to be... what you wrote... Then please do not participate. Such comments are unwelcome and unproductive.MAL01159 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
So is your continued insistence on trying to create a problem where there isn't one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion. Let's stick with facts, please.MAL01159 (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
No, in everybody's opinion except yours. And I find I have fallen into your endless-loop trap again. Finis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not dealing in opinion. Nor do I create "endless-loop traps" of any kind. What is your objection with "counting only seasons where MLB officially recognized a division champion"? It is shorter than what is there already. And I think explains the situation better. Is it factually inaccurate?MAL01159 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
A better question would be, is there a source for it? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)\
Sure. It's the same source that supports a comment already in the article. This one... "the strike-shortened 1994 season in which there were no official division champions". Or is there no source for that?MAL01159 (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It's still an attempt to slip your personal opinion in there that the streak was broken. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Please explain where in the suggested alternative comment does it "slip in" anyone's "personal opinion" regarding the streak. Please be specific about it so such potential kinks could be worked out.MAL01159 (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Your wording attempts to make it seem like the streak was broken. The current wording is fine, as everyone else also agrees. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I asked you to be specific. What about it leads you to that conclusion?MAL01159 (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Everything. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
So, what you are saying is that you are unable to explain why it leads you to your conclusion. That is not very constructive. Perhaps someone else can. Anyone else?MAL01159 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no problem with the existing wording and no need to change it. And you're not likely to hear from anyone else, since their answers will be the same as they were - that consensus says the current wording is fine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem as explained above. I presented an alternative I am hoping all will find acceptable. It should be discussed. If you do not wish to take part, then please do not use up space that could be used for valid discussion on the matter. Such behavior can be deemed "disruptive".MAL01159 (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Source added, please comment

I've added the NY Times article (cited way above) with a footnote that explains both that the Yankees calculate the Braves' win streak as being broken in 1994, and that the NY Times reports that the streak was not broken, and that there were no division champions that year (an issue which I think did need citing).

I hope that other editors won't mind this bit of bold editing, and that those who disagree will discuss it here rather than edit-warring. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is good that there is a footnote citing this. But the footnote contains something in quotes that has nothing to do with the article in question, and really presents an unbalanced take on the matter. I would recommend the words in quotes be abolished. Strike that. After giving further thought to the footnote in question, it seems it doesn't help the situation out one way or the other. It's main purpose seems to be for an editorial on the matter. And probably does not need to be there to begin with. It does have one redeeming factor, however. It points out that there is confusion regarding the 14 consecutive streak. The footnote is useful ONLY in that way. I will make an edit to it to reflect this. Like you, I am being bold But, the issue with the explanation given in parenthesis still remains. That explanation needs to be changed for clarity.
I also find it odd that you have deemed it OK to make a change and THEN ask for discussion while the change is up on the article for all to see. While I have been asked not to make a change unless it is discussed first. This could lead one to conclude there are double standards in play.MAL01159 (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
MAL, do not delete the comments of others. Kingturtle (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't. If one was attributed to me, then it was an error on my part and I apologize for it.MAL01159 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sheffield, your edit is a very reasonable attempt at working through this issue. I don't think MAL will be happy with any solution except his own. Many of us have tried a number of different compromises on the issue - MAL is the only one who won't compromise. It is my opinion that MAL is merely baiting and trolling.
I originally thought it was a reasonable attempt at working through the issue as well. But he insisted that it the reference include the writers personal opinion. Which meant it was not a good faith attempt to compromise. If it was, the reference would only be about how there is a source that does not call it 14. Including the quote is only one more attempt at injecting opinion into the situation. I am all about compromise. I have said over and over and over and over and over and over and over that I am accepting calling the streak 14, provided an adequate explanation could be provided for how it could be 14. That is what compromise is all about. Hence my above suggestion for an alternative explanation. There has been no input on it. It seems I am the only one interested in compromise so far. No one else is.MAL01159 (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sheff, I support your edit - and if we have to we can put it to a !Vote like we've done before. Kingturtle (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. It underscores the possibility, that no one seems to have considered, that MLB itself may not have any official position on this "consecutive titles" question. So the Braves (and many others) claim 14, and the Yankees (and no one else we know of except MAL01159) claim 3 + 11. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so. It was considered in the Divisions discussion above. And I have been making that claim from the very beginning. And if there is no official position, at the very least the explanation regarding the 14 consecutive needs to be reworded to prevent misconception.MAL01159 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed your "The reason being that since no one officially won a season that was officially played, the streak was broken" because that's your spin on it. The article does not say that. In fact, the article says "But there were no division champions or playoffs in 1994, so no other team interrupted the Braves' streaks." That's the exact opposite of what you keep trying to claim. No one besides you and the Yankees think that 1994 broke the streak. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I had it without the "reason being" section originally. But it is OK without it, I suppose. The article in question is an opinion in the first place. The important note is that the 14 consecutive thing is not verifiable and certainly NOT universal. The inclusion of this reference means that ALL references to the "14" need to be updated, however. And NOT relegated to a mere footnote.MAL01159 (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
PS: I would appreciate it if you would not participate in Taunting.MAL01159 (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not happy with the current version. MAL's first edit removed the quotation from the article which actually states the NYT's opinion of the matter. If we are going to cite a source, we should provide a fair and neutral picture of what that source actually says, not cut out half of it so it matches our personal point of view. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The way it was before was simply an opinion of a writer (Not the official endorsement of the NYT) and the only reason it was there was to endorse a particular opinion regarding the streak. Removing the quote removes the opinion and leaves only the idea that the 14 is not universal. Which I was led to believe was the purpose of including the reference in the first place. If not, then the reference is worthless.MAL01159 (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just re-worded the footnote. The opinion is attributed to the NYT, which satisfies WP:NPOV - I recommend you read the section titled "a simple formulation" if you don't understand why this is. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You are insisting on including an opinion as a reference. I do not understand why. Since this is the case, I would recommend the entire reference be removed. I was under the impression that opinions were not valid sources.MAL01159 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the reference. It was turning into an edit war. The inclusion of the reference should have been discussed first.MAL01159 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I just read the section. The reference you cited does not fall into the neutral point of view category. It is the opinion of one writer. And it doesn't even explain what led that writer to the opinion in the first place. Nor does the mere fact that an opinion appearing in the paper make that opinion the official stance of the newspaper. That issue was not addressed in the area you suggested I read.MAL01159 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
What about this quote from the NYT: Everyone else who talks about Atlanta's perennial trip to the playoffs as division champion says the Braves have won 12 consecutive division championships and have appeared in the postseason 12 consecutive times. The Yankees' math is different. - is it really your position that this is just the writer's opinion?
I'm sorry, but assuming good faith only goes so far. You have denied, argued around, or ignored every source providing an interpretation of the 1994 results or the Braves' history, and every other editor's opinion on what those sources state, and here is another source stating, essentially, that your position is in a tiny minority. I've made a good faith attempt to include the one source supporting your position neutrally and fairly - arguably something that should not be represented on Wikipedia at all - and your reaction is to try to misrepresent what the source says and now, apparently, you don't like the source after all. I hope you don't mind if I wait to see what other editors think about this. You seem a bit... non-neutral. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You are taking the opinion of one writer VERY literally. Obviously the writer was exaggerating to make his point. In this case, yes. It IS ONE writer's opinion. Or, if you count the Braves article, 2. But one who did not have a conflict of interest. I have not denied, argued around, or ignored every source providing an interpretation of the 1994 results or the Braves' history. That is your doing. Every source I provided you found a way to either discredit it or ignore it completely. I have been VERY open to the situation. I have even been open to offering up alternative wording that would at least be acceptable to all. Your inclusion of the NYT reference is certainly NOT a good faith attempt to include a source showing the streak of 14 to be debatable. The mere fact that you insisted on including the opinion of the writer (which coincidentally is the same as yours) proves it. The writer’s opinion in the reference undermines the main point, which is the streak of 14 is not a universal or even verifiable concept. The inclusion of that opinion made that reference NOT neutral or fair. If you were interested in neutral representation of the issue, you would never have insisted the opinion portion of the article be included. You see, I originally THOUGHT the point of the reference was to put in question the concept of 14 in a row. By saying there was a part of MLB that did not recognize the streak as bridging the '94 season. But the opinion part being included derailed that entire concept.
I am, however, still interested in discussion regarding the explanation of how a winning streak can continue when a team did not win. I have already accepted that the number 14 will remain in the article. I feel I have given a GREAT DEAL. Yet NO ONE else seems to be willing to bend even a 1/100th of what I have.MAL01159 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The 1994 season had no champions. Therefore, no championship streak was broken. How much plainer can that be? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself. This was already addressed. If no one won, but the season was played and counted, then the Braves did not win either. A winning streak requires a win. There was none. Streak ends. But this is not what I am discussing now anyway. I am trying to re-word the explanation for how a team can have a winning streak when it did not win. No longer dealing with the 14 consecutive issue. I am accepting that the streak will be called 14 for now. I just want a reasonable explanation for how it could be so.MAL01159 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The above comments are your personal spin, with no citations whatsoever in support of it, outside of the Yankees' opinion on the matter. If you list all the possible champions from 1991 through 2005, you will see that there is no break in the list. Streak continues. And my statement is supported by various sources, previously covered. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have already addressed all this. You are repeating yourself a great deal. Perhaps this approach might get you to look at this a different way. One could just as easily claim that the streak continuing is your personal spin on the situation. Even though MLB has not made an official determination on the matter (that anyone here has found at least), you are using your own personal spin to determine what the unusual circumstances of the 1994 season means. And you also seem to want to continue to rehash something that is no longer on the table. I am no longer arguing in favor of 11 over 14. In the interest of civility and compromise I have abandoned that. At this point, I am only interested in explaining CLEARLY how the streak could be considered 14. Hence, altering the given explanation. The given explanation is a personal spin of how the streak could be 14. My alternative does not place any spin on it and states exactly how the streak could be considered 14. One other thing... True a list of officially recognized division champions would skip the 1994 season. But that would imply the 1994 season was not officially played. When in fact, it was. Which would blow a huge hole in the idea that the 14 titles were in fact, consecutive.MAL01159 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That's your unverifiable interpretation of the situation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The Giants of 1916 set the all-time record with 26 straight wins. That was during 27 games, as there was an intervening tie. "A winning streak requires a win" is a demonstrably false conclusion on your part. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This has been addressed as well. According to Baseball Almanac the record is 21. But the unbeaten streak is 26. A winning streak requires a win. (a fact that is verifiable and "demonstrably" true) But an unbeaten streak does not. It only requires that you not get defeated. I know Elias is the official keeper of stats. But their determination is unverifiable without sending them money. If you have the book, I recommend scanning and posting an image of the page it is on. That would solve the issue right there.MAL01159 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Baseball almanac is not an official source. Elias is. I'm not scanning and uploading copyrighted material, but you're free to order the book from their website [2] if you want to read it. And your complaint about having to send them money is true about any published book - and published books are valid sources. But since you're such a records maven, I thought surely you would want to get a copy. It's not too expensive as books go. Oh, and I say again, your statement "a winning streak requires a win" ist strictly your opinion, uncited, and in fact contradicted by the 26 record. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
True. Elias is. But at this point, all we have is your "word" for what Elias claims. With all due respect, your "word" is not enough to blindly accept with nothing else behind it. You are also drawing your own conclusion from my comment. I was not "complaining". I was merely stating a verifiable fact. The data is not available unless you pay for it. I was not judging it. The idea that a winning streak requires a win is indeed verifiable. You might want to look at this organization's own determination of it. Winning streak (sports) Specifically, the following line... "A winning streak is not to be confused with an unbeaten streak, where teams can tie as well as win and keep their streak. For example, if a soccer team wins four games in a row, plays a draw, wins three more, plays two draws in a row, and then loses, they had a 10 game unbeaten streak. Their longest winning streak in this sequence was four." This is not contradicted by the 26 record but in fact is supported by it. The winning streak record is 21. But the unbeaten record is 26.MAL01159 (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You are free to buy the book or look for it at your library. Which is true of any published book, and published books are verifiable sources - especially when they're in print, as this one is. You don't believe me? Get the book. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Eventually I may check it out. As of right now, your "word" is not a verifiable source. I am, however, hoping that the article supplied regarding a "winning streak" is enough to put to rest your assertion that a winning streak may continue without a win.MAL01159 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem with Wikipedia, MAL, is that no one is interested in your opinion. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That means that no matter how good your arguments may be, you are never going to persuade the other editors here to include your opinion in the article. The only thing that might persuade us to include anything you believe would be for you to provide a reliable source sharing your opinion - and if so, we will include it, and say that it is their opinion. Otherwise, there is nothing more to discuss. Sources => discussion => consensus => article. Clear enough? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
While no one is interested in my opinion, no one is interested in yours, either. This is where you are having a problem here. Calling the streak 14 is an unverifiable opinion. I am not asking anyone to include my opinion in the article. (Even though there are opinions in the article already) I am only asking for clarity. The article currently contains conflicting information. The thing that would put an end to this would be if MLB made an official stance on the issue. But no one has found one. Until there is one, then the idea that the streak is 14 is nothing more than someone's opinion of what the 1994 season means. Therefore, I think saying "Counting only seasons where MLB officially recognized a division champion" is an excellent way to explain how the streak could be deemed 14. It completely satisfies WP:NPOV. It is verifiable if the existing comment about MLB officially not recognizing division champions that year is verifiable. And it does not cause one to question the claim. I am still wondering what the objection is to this.MAL01159 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is that the article stays as is. You need to go find some other article to work on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
No, consensus was that the streak will continue to be called 14. In spite of the lack of verifiable sources to confirm it. I am only interested in providing a clear explanation of how 14 could be possible considering the effects of the 1994 season.MAL01159 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)The only "problem I am having here" is one disruptive editor who refuses to acknowledge the idea that Wikipedia works by consensus and that it requires its content to be cited to reliable sources. Speaking of sources... several have been provided that are consistent with the streak being unbroken; on the other hand, no source has been provided saying that the streak was broken. This is why the consensus of editors here is that it's correct for the article to state that the streak was 14. Either accept that, or risk being sanctioned for disruptive behaviour. Your choice. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It is VERY obvious that I am aware the articles require citation of reliable sources. I have provided plenty in my discussion that the streak be 11 rather than 14. But the one thing my argument lacked was something official from the one source that could put an end to all this. Major League Baseball themselves. That being said, those whose opinion the streak is 14 have not provided anything greater than my sources. And certainly have not provided what the official stance of MLB is. You seem to not understand what I am trying to do at this point. You continue to hammer home the 11 vs 14 thing, hen I have made it crystal clear that I am no longer interested in that. What I am trying to do is make the explanation behind the opinion of 14 to be something that is not conflicting. And that actually makes sense. I am not dealing with the 14 anymore. I gave that up in the interest of civility and compromise. I do not know a more direct way to put it. I would also like to know how the desire to discuss clarifying a comment could be considered disruptive.MAL01159 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. He's right that our opinions (about 14 vs. 11) don't matter. What matters is the sources. The sources say it's 14 because there was no title in 1994. End of story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You are correct when you say what matters is the sources. But the sources are in conflict with each other. The reasoning that it continues because there was no title in 1994 is flawed. (User:MPS/It's ok to use your brain) Therefore, the explanation needs to be adjusted.MAL01159 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Your claim that it's flawed has no verifiable basis. It's nothing but your own spin on it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You continue to say this, but you offer nothing to support your allegations.MAL01159 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Your statement, "The reasoning that it continues because there was no title in 1994 is flawed", has no verifiable basis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There are no sources saying the streak was 11. The sources saying the streak was 14 are consistent and reliable enough, taken as a whole, that the consensus ought to surprise no-one. I believe that this tendentious argumentation has gone on long enough; hence I have created Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MAL01159. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are. I provided them. They are consistent and reliable as well. But that is neither here nor there. I have been trying to move away from the 11 vs 14 thing for a week now. In the interest of civility and compromise I have accepted that the article will use the unverified 14 consecutive figure. Please do not continue to argue the 11 vs 14 issue. It has been put to bed. If you wish to comment on the alternative explanation, you are certainly welcome.MAL01159 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If you had sources saying the streak was 11 games, why didn't you list them above under #Recap_of_the_reliable_source_data? If you had, you probably would have persuaded other editors to change the consensus. Come to think of it, why not list them now? After all, consensus can change. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Here it is again. You SAY this as if I never did it to begin with. I provided links to multiple source material. It was always shot down for dubious reasons, or for each person's personal spin on what was deemed a credible source. Just scroll up for quite a ways. It's there in one of these long sections.MAL01159 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me put this a little more strongly. I think that you did not cite any source saying that the streak was 11 championships. If you have a source, why not post it and prove me wrong? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine. But I do not see the point. Over a week ago I accepted that the article will contain the opinion that a winning streak can continue when the team did not win. I do not believe you will accept it as valid either. (This is one place where I would love for you to prove me wrong) Even though it is 100% flawless. http://atlanta.braves.mlb.com/atl/history/year_by_year_results.jsp http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/ This does NOT constitute "original research". This data, on it's own, is enough to prove the streak is 11 or 14 of 15. It is far more compelling than any opinion any writer types as it is undeniable fact. Not opinion. It is even more powerful when you factor in data that is known to exist that is not part of the data provided. The fact that the 1994 season was indeed played and considered an official complete season. The fact that the team that finishes in first place is division champion. Including the oddity that MLB did not officially recognize a division champion in 1994.MAL01159 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"This data, on it's own, is enough to prove the streak is 11 or 14 of 15." No, it isn't. Neither of those pages says anything about whether or not a division title was awarded in 1994. Concluding that one was does, indeed, constitute original research, until and unless you find an official source that says a division title was awarded in 1994 -- note: NOT that someone else finished first, and NOT that someone else had a better record, and NOT even that someone "won" the division. Specifically, you have to find a source that actually states that MLB recognizes that Montreal won the NL East. Otherwise, it's 14 of 14, period. Your point on what the sources say, or even what the sources represent, fails.
Moving on, I believe the definition of "streak" to which you were referring was this one: "2. A continuous series of like events." Sorry, but 1994 most assuredly was not a "like event" in relation to 1993 or 1995. The Atlanta Braves did, in fact, win 14 consecutive "like events" -- specifially, division titles as recognized by MLB. Your point on definition of terms fails.
Further, 1994 may be an official season, but it is most certainly not an official COMPLETE season. Additionally, we have the fact that the Cincinnati Reds were not the NL West division champion in 1981 (and in fact did not even make the playoffs despite having the best record in the division that year). Your point on finishing in first place defining a division champion fails.
Your whole argument is a non-starter. Go back and try harder. -Dewelar (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is enough to prove the streak was 11. The data just shows how the Braves finished each season. This is very useful when combined with other knowledge. I explained this in the post you responded to. The other knowledge is that apart from the 1981 and 1994 seasons, all teams that have finished first were officially deemed division champions. You made the incorrect assumption that I was assuming there was a division title officially recognized in 1994. I did not make any such assumption. I only dealt with the facts. Since I did not make that assumption, your conclusion that I used "original research" is incorrect. My source still succeeds.
The 1994 season was indeed a "like event" to the 1995 and 1993 season. It was a season that was officially played and officially concluded. All stats from all games counted. All players who played in the season got credit for a season played in MLB. Unless the entire season was an exhibition that did not count towards regular season stats for players, or at least players not getting credit for time played, then it was indeed a "like event". Teams do not need to play 162 games for a season to be official or complete. Therefore, the Braves won 14 out of 15 "like events". Your interpretation of what constitutes a "like event" is false.
The 1994 season is considered by Major League Baseball to be a complete Official season. All player stats count. Players got credit for a full season played. Post season awards were dished out. None of these things would have occurred had the season not been a COMPLETE official season. You are making the assumption that a season cannot be complete or official unless there is a post season to go along with it. (Original research?) That is not the case. A season may be official and complete even when no post season is played. The 1981 season was an oddity due to outside influences. Officially, the Reds did not win anything that year. The season was divided into halves. Officially, the Reds did not have the best record because officially the combined first and 2nd half records did not exist. The events of 1981 do not apply here except that MLB has been known to make on the spot decisions when the situation forces them to do so. Therefore, my point that apart from known instances in 1981 and 1994, the team that finishes first in a division is crowned the division champion succeeds.
I would recommend you COMPLETELY read the post before responding to it in the manner you did. Part of what you argued was already addressed by me. Rendering that entire portion of your comment worthless. You spoke of trying harder. Take your own advice.MAL01159 (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What you don't seem to understand is that your interpretation of the data is just that: an interpretation. I disagree with each and every one of your points. That is also an interpretation. The problem arises from your apparent belief that YOUR interpretation is FACT while the interpretation of EVERY OTHER PERSON IN THE THREAD is just opinion. It simply doesn't work that way. The reality is that NEITHER of our interpretations is specifically backed with a citation. That you believe that yours IS backed with such a citation, taken in concert with your earlier accusation of chicanery on Bugs' part, shows that you don't understand the concepts of reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
In other words, consensus has been reached, and it disagrees with you. Until and unless you find a reliable, verifiable source that agrees with your interpretation, you have no leg on which to stand. Move on. -Dewelar (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If NEITHER interpretation is backed with a citation, then why am I being singled out? If neither sides interpretation has no backing, then the others interpretation has no backing either. If that is so then not only am I not familiar with the concepts of reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability but all editors who feel the streak is 14 aren't either. It also follows then that consensus was reached based on personal opinions only. With no verifiable sources and no citations of any kind. (How Buggs has treated me here has no bearing on this) And if that is the case, then it would follow then that both views of the situation ought to be presented with equal standing until there is an official ruling from the one source that could put an end to all this.
I am also curious why I have to be the one to present still more verifiable sources that agree with my interpretation (like I have already done) yet others do not need to present any. You yourself claimed that neither side had anything. Why am I the one with no leg to stand on? The other side shouldn't have one either. You are making conflicting comments. It is not helping the situation.
BTW I have "moved on". But others seem to keep dragging me back in.MAL01159 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The question: "If NEITHER interpretation is backed with a citation, then why am I being singled out?" The answer: Wikipedia:Consensus. That is all.-Dewelar (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)Arguing here is going to achieve precisely nothing. The only thing that will determine article content is information provided by reliable sources.

At the risk of repeating myself: The sources cited by MAL01159 do not actually say that the Braves won "11 consecutive division titles". Theose sources provide raw data which can be interpreted as saying they won 11 consecutive titles. That data can also be interpreted as saying that they won 14 consecutive titles, but MAL01159 refuses to accept that any reasonable person could make any other interpretation, despite the fact that every source that provides an interpretation seems to agree with this non-MAL01159 interpretation.

One further point. The Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines state: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. This discussion is unlikely to lead to any conceivable improvement to the article; further, it is disruptive and distracting to editors who could otherwise be productive elsewhere. If this tendentious argument continues I will propose that, as suggested by another editor at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MAL01159, MAL01159 be banned from editing this article and its Talk page, to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, there is no official source provided that is NOT an opinion that actually SAYS the streak is 14, either. Also, as I have said many many times, I am accepting the 14 is number presented in the article. Further, I am curious why I would be the one banned when I am not the one responsible for the continued non-productive activity here? If I am banned, then all who took part in this mess ought to be banned as well. Including yourself.MAL01159 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not require "official sources", only reliable ones. If you are indeed accepting the sources provided and the figure of 14, then that's the end of this discussion. On the other hand, if you have a problem with my conduct, you are most welcome to request comments or to follow other steps in Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidelines. I'm sure you could make a very good case that it would be a net benefit to Wikipedia if I were to be banned from this Talk page and forced to contribute elsewhere; I would probably agree with you :-) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, reliable sources are not what is required by Wikipedia. Only the majority's opinion is what matters. A hard lesson learned, but an important one. For the time being, I am done here.MAL01159 (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'm not an editor but I just read through the bulk of this. You guys slammed this ML guy pretty hard when he had a legitimate point. Just saying that as a disinterested 3rd party, the point ought to have been at least considered instead of dismissed outright. Thumbs up to ML for sticking with it for as long as he did.--12.166.189.106 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd need to also read a few of our policy pages to get a thorough understanding of what happened. Actually, it was MAL01159 that refused to consider our point, not the other way round. The root issue is whether there is only one way of interpreting the primary source data - MAL01159's position - or whether an alternative interpretation is also reasonable. Since most editors here (i.e. everyone except MAL01159) accepted that both interpretations were possible, we accepted that all the sources made one particular interpretation. However, MAL01159 did not accept that that interpretation was reasonable, and was forced to argue against each source piecemeal (this one isn't official, that one has a disclaimer, that one is an opinion, and so on). At the end of the day, there were no sources and no editors supporting MAL01159's position. Since the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is Verifiability, and since wikipedia discussions work through a consensus process, MAL01159's desired text had no basis and no support for being added to the article. I hope this helps explain the history of this page. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 05:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:MilwaukeeBaseballM.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Name"

It says: "The team became the Braves for the first time in 1912. Their owner, James Gaffney, was a member of New York City's political machine, Tammany Hall, which used an Indian chief as their symbol." OK, but surely the reference is to the "braves" of the Boston Tea Party http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party. Tim in Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.73.131.132 (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Rotten Years"

How come the 1978-1990 section is not subtitled "The Rotten Years"? Braves fans often refer to that era as "The Rotten Years" because of how awful the team generally was.

I'd do this unilaterally, but somebody kept reverting it, even after I backed up the naming of the section. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 19:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source, and you've got a good case for changing the name of the section. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems that some Braves fans refer to those years as such, but it was never picked up by the Atlanta press, let alone national press. JAF1970 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Condense 2006-2008

I don't see why those years should be discussed in detail seperately - it should be condensed into a single era. Title? "Modern Era"? "Post dominant era"? JAF1970 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

1912???

This is a single franchise, dating back to 1876 (or 1871 if you count their continuum from the NA). There is nothing special about 1912, it was just a new nickname. The Toronto Maple Leafs don't start counting their Stanley Cups from 1927, when they changed their nickname from the St. Patricks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

help

help as u may have already seen, i cannot get my picture right. plz help!!!!!!!

cant get pic on right.near uniforms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boltrocks (talk • contribs)

Nationality of Players

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball § Nationality of Players

Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that. If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons. I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page. However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus on the talk page for each team. yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a very old idea, and the flags were removed from the MLB rosters as per the Manual of Style awhile back. WP:Otherstuffexists is not a valid reason for violating the MOS. - BilCat (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Subjective & Inaccurate

"While rivalries are generally characterized by mutual hatred, the Braves—Phillies deeply respect each other. Each game played (and there are 18 games in 2011) is vastly important between these two NL East giants, but at the end of the day, they are very similar organizations.[38]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.92.198 (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse the fact that I dont know how to properly discuss an article, but I have to say the organizations are very different. Just look at the payroll. The phillies are the yankees of the NL. The Braves prefer to use their farm to grow players. This section is just false. june 20 2011

2011 collapse, Offseason

talk more about the historic collapse the braves endured in 2011 and give a little more details about it. Also talk about their offseason plans and what they plan on doing to prevent the same from happening again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshsneeder81215 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I can expound upon the collapse as requested. To see detailed transactions this offseason, see the current season article: 2012 Atlanta Braves season. BBQ (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully I have fulfilled your request about the collapse with my edit. I may have gotten a bit carried away. Oh well. BBQ (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Boston Beaneaters

A new article has been created at Boston Beaneaters (NL). Should this be merged into the Braves article? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like thats in the page now, but love the classic names and gear. --Still-Jim (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


"the Braves and Phillies deeply respect each other."

That seems rather subjective, doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.160.240 (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Logo image

Is there any way to decrease the size of the logo image in the infobox so it resembles the other MLB team infoboxes? The "Braves" logo is wider than the box and makes it expand and looks awkward to me... Atlswag69 (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

East Division Titles

Since this page is protected I can't do this myself, either there is a year missing from the East Division Titles or the number is wrong. There are only 12 years listed but it says they got it 13 times. 108.16.32.242 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. - BilCat (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atlanta_Braves/Archive_2&oldid=1150180695"