Talk:Cy Young

There is a lot of research going on at the moment that tends to show that the Boston Americans were never actually called the "Pilgrims" at the time -- that it was a name that baseball writers later stuck onto the team's history. I belong to the Sabremetric baseball research group and will research this issue a little, then, if necessary, make any changes. Hayford Peirce 03:32, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I've eliminated the Pilgrims reference -- here's a link to a major article about that nickname....

• http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/boston_pilgrims_story.shtml - article refuting Pilgrims nickname

Interesting fact- Mr. Young also holds the record for losingest pitcher. --cuiusquemodi 04:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I changed "threw out the first pitch of the first W.S. game" to "Young pitched in the first game of the first World Series." The phrase "threw out the first pitch" is usually associated with the ceremonial first pitch that is usually thrown by presidents or former players. Since he did more than just throw the first pitch, I changed it to that he pitched in the first game.

Hitting

Accord to my early research, Young holds a lot of hitting records. I've searched the MLB.com stats database for players who have pitched 5000 innings or more and he's the leader in ABs, hits, RBI, runs and total bases.

Cy Young's profile on MLB.com

I can't say it officially though - but there are only two pitchers close to him in at bats; Pud Galvin and Walter Johnson. There's also no record of how many at bats he got as a position player, and it's debatable whether than even matters. If a guy get's 98% of his at bats as a pitcher, that's surely enough? Mglovesfun 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

---

This has to be the worst Wikipedia article I've ever read. I'll take out the most obvious crap, but this article needs a lot of work. Good grief. Praetorian42 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Pitchers Mound

The article ought to say what the pitchers' mound was moved from. StaticElectric 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Career Statistics?

Why is the Cy Young "Career Statistics" section empty? Either show the stats, or remove the section. Of course, the former is preferred. Usuallylogical 21:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I actually just axed the section. I don't believe the entire grid for his career should be included. I would probably say a summary of his career stats is a good idea, but the article has more pressing needs right now. //Tecmobowl 02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• For further reading, you might want to see WP:EL#What should be linked. //Tecmobowl 02:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Current edits & cleanup

I think the work by Tecmobowl as well as others is improving this article. The info about Young's rookie season with Canton and the $500 contract is great. I've reworked and tightened the intro to emphasize what I think are the most salient bulletpoints: the Award, 511 wins, Hall of Fame, no-hitters.208.120.227.250 16:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reinserted some of the "color" into the early part of the article (i.e. fastest pitcher, steak in glove, battery with Zimmer, mound distance moved) because it gives more of an individual sense than simple statistical info.

The reversion reinstated a handful of typos and grammatical errors, which I've fixed. As for the arrangement of the introduction, the 511 wins are paramount. I feel that 511 must be mentioned before the number of teams Young played for, or his 20-win seasons, which were commonplace during that era of baseball.

Without an explanation being offered, I'm unsure why the narrative descriptions of Young's pitching style, or the era he played in, are being deleted. The first half of Young's career is disposed of in two paragraphs, or half the space given to Fernando Valenzuela and Denny McLain not knowing much about him. There's about as much information about the Cleveland Spiders' shifting organizational status as there is about how Cy Young pitched for the team. I've replaced the narrative information, with citations.

I hope this clarifies the reasoning behind the edits, and that upcoming revisions will also be explained. Thanks!208.120.227.250 21:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• In the future, you will want to sign your name at the end of your posts. You might want to review WP:LEAD for some more information on how to organize the information. The opening sentence is not well written at this point. While it is grammatically correct, it does not provide the reader with the proper information for context. I'll see what you can do with the article before I touch it again. Thanks for your efforts. //Tecmobowl 21:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• One quick note, you also have used the passive voice in your edits. This is generally frowned upon, although it is frequently done. WP:MOS talks a bit about it. From there, you can continue reading the other linked articles. //Tecmobowl 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

208.120.227.250 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)The edits and revisions have hurt the introduction. Each of the first two sentences establishes that Young played professional baseball; surely one is sufficient. Young's sizeable IP totals (etc.) are also invoked twice. But his 511 wins are now less prominent than his having played for 5 teams, an accomplishment that also applies to Damion Easley or Ted Lilly. Young's all-time win total is also tucked behind his 20-win seasons, a benchmark which was not as highly valued or rare during Young's era. For example, in Cy Young's first 20-win season, just twenty pitchers started 30+ games, and a dozen of them topped 20 wins. The information belongs in the piece, of course, but not ahead of 511 wins.

As it stands, for the 1891-1900 time period, there is almost as much information in the article about the Cleveland Spiders' business practices as there is about a person named Cy Young.

The autoreversion has, once again, reinstated a number of typographical/grammatical errors to the piece. I have seen this habit introduce a lack of delicacy or precision to other Wikipages, and I hope it will be avoided here. Young is now listed as starting his professional career twice-- first in 1889, and again in 1890. The article claims he was given his "Cy" nickname in 1915. It claims that one of four errors cost Young a perfect game. It states that 1930 is "the beginning of the modern era" in baseball. A description of the 1899 Spiders ends in mid-sentence. All of these have been corrected, along with others. I request that future edits and reversions be more specifically applied, rather than be swept under the wholesale "last previous version" approach.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.227.250 (talk • contribs)

208.120.227.250 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)WP:LEAD says the following: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Please note the above comment, particularly as it relates to the relative importance of Young's five professional teams vs. his 511 wins. The 511 wins are more important to the topic, and according to WP:LEAD, should take precedence. I sincerely believe the intro's emphasis must be on Cy Young's singular achievements, rather than ones that he shares with many players, including those of little note.

Again, some of the latest edits are still reinstating errors that have been removed multiple times from the text (i.e. "88-years after"; "won at least 20-games"; "Young's had 76 shutouts").208.120.227.250 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you see problems with small portions of text, then fix them. If mathematical errors have been made, then just fix them.//Tecmobowl 04:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Text

I've removed the following text from an edit i'm about to finish up: "Subsequent research has shown that Young was credited with an extra win in 1907. He entered a game in relief, with the Red Sox already holding a 6-4 lead, but was awarded the victory by the scorer. An appeal to baseball's rules committee many decades later failed to correct the decision. "If I hadn't been dealing with an immortal like Cy Young," said SABR's Frank Williams, "I think I probably would have gotten the switchover to [Ralph] Glaze," the pitcher who'd preceded Young. Young also went 3-3 as an interim player/manager for the Boston team, a role he did not relish." Anyone have a citation for this? //Tecmobowl 14:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the original 1969 Baseball Encyclopedia actually took away 3 wins from Young, due to their committee's decisions on how to count wins. That kind of tinkering caused the encyclopedia to lose its "official" status. If MLB says it's 511, then it's 511, regardless of what any private and anecdotal research shows. Baseball Bugs 16:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested fact?

Where is it? I'm not seeing it. Unless you're talking about the item you removed. And this "major rewrite" looks like you simply put one of your versions back, complete with typos and other mistakes. Baseball Bugs 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect Game

What has MLB's 1991 decision got to do with Cy Young's perfect game? It has no bearing on it, and his perfect game was called a perfect game at least as far back as Ernie Lonigan's 1922 encyclopedia. All the 1991 ruling did was make it "official". So what? Baseball Bugs 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

BB, can you provide a reference for Ernest Lonigan's work? Because you referring off-hand to a reference in a footnote, and you should really just have a reference in a footnote.

Although listed as a perfect game in record books as early 1922, Major League Baseball did not classify a "perfect game" (a pitcher facing and retiring at least 27 batters) until 1991, after Young's death.

Lanigan, Ernest (1922). "The Baseball Cyclopedia". p. 83-84.

How's that? I can find the page that says how to put references in footnotes. The footnote isn't done properly anyway. Miss Mondegreen talk  03:23, June 25 2007 (UTC)

Well, that book is not really in print anymore... but I could scan the page and upload it if you want. Also, I could scan the page from the Baseball Scrapbook that shows the term "perfect game" in 1908, in reference to Joss' gem. Come to think of it, there is a book in print (or at least recently printed), Dickson's Baseball Dictionary, that references Lanigan's 1922 usage of the term. Note that I mis-spelled his name earlier. And the exact name of the book is The Baseball Cyclopedia. Lanigan was like the godfather of all "figger filberts". Baseball Bugs 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I found it and I'm in the middle of doing the formatting. If you can just add the pages that the reference appears on--that would be great. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:37, June 25 2007 (UTC)

I updated it in both the article and above in your entry. My one concern is that your attempt to redefine what a perfect game is might prove confusing. The term is defined fully in the article about perfect games. Also, as far as I know, it doesn't have to be "a" pitcher. It could be 9 pitchers, as long as each of them retires every batter he faces. Then, of course, it would be a "combined-to-pitch-no-hitter", as has happened before, as well as a "combined-to-pitch-perfect-game", which has not happened (yet). Baseball Bugs 09:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Some major changes were made to the article which added excessive citations and undid a lot of good editing that was done to the article. I think there is some difference between the version i just put in place and the previous version with regards to the perfect game. Some contextual changes are fine, but the information is meant to communicate to the reader that baseball (and that is - MLB) did not recognize the perfect game until 1991. With regards to his records being unbreakable and what not, those are very POV statements that equate to WP:CRYSTAL and do not belong. //Tecmobowl 10:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• You're now dealing with an IP address who's putting his tupence in, so good luck. Meanwhile, I see you kept the perfect game citation intact, and while I still think it's irrelevant in this article, at least now it's factually correct. Baseball Bugs 10:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• I had to correct the citation, as your revert had put it back to the not-quite-correct version. Meanwhile, the reason I had a problem with the original wording is that it implied he didn't know he had thrown a perfect game. He knew perfectly well that he had thrown a perfect game. Well before the time of his death, the concept was mainstream. It just wasn't codified until 1991, when MLB decided to throw out no-hitters that went less than 9, or ones that went more than 9 and were broken up. Just like the Star-Spangled Banner wasn't codified as the National Anthem until 1930-something, even though it already was, de facto; and like English, even now, is not the official language of the USA, even though it is, de facto. What Young definitely did not know about (unless someone gave him advance notice) is the award named in his memory. Baseball Bugs 11:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• If there was a problem with the definition as I posted it, please, go ahead and correct it (though I assume there wasn't since BB, you added page numbers etc but didn't change the def). I don't know why you the page got reverted to the former format, but not only should footnotes and references really be formatted seperately, but the current footnote for this contains within it an offhand reference (Baseball Cyclopedia), but doesn't contain page numbers or other information that it should. Can we go back to the footnote format that I inserted into the article or was there some problem with it? You didn't leave an edit summary Tecmo (though I doubt it would have helped me as you were going back past a lot of IP edits). Also, BB, according to World Cat and the Library of Congress it's Baseball Cyclopedia, not The Cyclopedia of Baseball. Your copy says The Cyclopedia of Baseball? http://worldcat.org/oclc/5225532 Miss Mondegreen talk  06:57, June 26 2007 (UTC)

• Tecmo and the IP address user need to work out the overall details, but it should be safe for you to add back that one appropriately-formatted citation. As for the book's title, I was going by what it says on the cover of the book, which is "The Baseball Cyclopedia". However, on the inside title page, and in other places in the book (including the top line of every page), it simply says "Baseball Cyclopedia". Baseball Bugs 07:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. If you look at that world cat link, every edition is called "baseball cyclopedia" and there's an image of the cover for a more recent edition and it just says "baseball cyclopedia" on the cover. Considering what you've said and the info at worldcat and the library of congress, I'm going to cite it as "baseball cyclopedia" because the cover of the 1922 edition seems to be an anomaly and not the title. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:53, June 27 2007 (UTC)

• As you wish. For titles of media items that start with "The", the typical representation in an index is "[item], The". It might well be that the cover was produced separately from the book (it's a thicker type of paper) and when they went to put them together maybe someone said "Oops!" but decided not to bother reprinting it. Baseball Bugs 08:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm guessing the cover is a misprint of some sort. I trust the library of congress and world cat, and Baseball Cyclopedia seems to be the more consistent name even on the actual book itself. I put in the actual rule too. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:46, June 27 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, thanks for alerting me to the book's reprint. I just ordered one from McFarland, the publisher.[1] It was re-printed in 2005 and is still available. The copy I have, I got from a used-book store, decades ago, and it's kind of ratty. It also has only two supplements. The reprint has all 12 of them. An outstanding book, as it was one of the first attempts, if not the first, to organize the baseball records. It paved the way to works such as The Sporting News record book, which I'm guessing basically replaced it. Lanigan was the godfather of all "figger filberts" (in fact, apparently that term was invented to describe him) and was probably a weird character, but so was Van Gogh. Baseball Bugs 09:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unbreakable?

It would be interesting to see a citation that suggests it is possible for a pitcher to win 511 games (along with losing over 300) sometime in the future. Maybe if they legalize steroids and/or develop artificial ligaments. Baseball Bugs 11:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent sweeping edits

208.120.224.97 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)I'm "the IP address who's putting his tupence in." I've been contributing to Wikipedia for several years now, but I prefer not to register an ID. The fact that two of the editors here seem to have some kind of "history" is an example of why I haven't done so. My IP address changes every one to three weeks, which keeps me out of longterm Wikifeuds. I have no interest in building a Wiki history or reputation, or exerting power; I just want to improve the website. Anyway, on to the article.

The all-purpose reversions by Tecmobowl keep reinserting errors, wordiness, and repetition, while silmultaneously deleting worthwhile content. I'm going to go edit by edit here to explain the reasoning for my own edit today; forgive me for the length.

The intro that Tecmobowl keeps reinserting mentions that Cy Young played "professional" "major league" baseball four times in the first two sentences, which is overkill. It contains a run-on sentence with a grammatical error. Young won 20 games fifteen times, not sixteen; that feat is less notable than his 30-win seasons, but the importance is reversed. "As a result of his consistent performance over an extended period of time" is filler. So is the repeated "in Major League history"-type clarification; it's been established that Young played 22 MLB years, and that these are MLB records. More filler and repetition occurs with paragraph 4 and Young's rankings; we may safely assume that editors at the Sporting News made the call, as opposed to shoemaking elves or the office furniture. We can also assume that Young was being ranked as a player on a list entitled "Baseball's 100 Greatest Players."

Specific details about Young's life, career, and especially his particular style of pitching, have been repeatedly deleted. These include his physical build, his alternate "Farmer" nickname, his fastball and changeup, his reliance on control which outlasted his speed, the conditions of play at the beginning of his career, his catcher's steak tactic, and so forth. This is detrimental to the article, and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy on biographies.

More wordiness keeps reappearing in the article-- "a 15-15 record" beats "he won 15 games and lost 15 games"; also, "one-year" is NOT hyphenated. We can also be confident that the catcher who nicknamed Young "Cy" did so after his tryout; these words needn't be there.

"In games Young started while with the Spiders, Chief Zimmer was the catcher more times than any other player" is clunky writing. Why the account of the 1892 championship was deleted is unexplained; without an explanation, it will appear to be because of the editor's lack of precision when reverting.

The emphasis on the Cleveland Spiders' organizational saga would be most useful in the Cleveland Spiders article. Why it keeps being reinserted at length, at the same time that Cy Young information is being removed, is perplexing. Also, what befell the Spiders following the departure of Young & Co. (worst record ever) is more germane, historic and compelling than what league the Spiders used to be in before Young's career began.

Young's career was revived by his move to the AL, and he was highly-paid for doing so. This is more pertinent than a laborious account of what a pitching triple crown constitutes, especially as this info is already available on its own Wikipedia page. The Young/Carlton winning % record also captures the weakness of Young's '01 Boston team. The Boston press reaction to "Farmer" Young at Harvard also adds contemporary color.

The new version of Young's perfect game vs. Waddell is jumbled and overwritten. Many other faceoffs between future Hall of Famers were played at that time, before then, and since. The "perfect game" description drops all details of Young's actual perfect game, in favor of what amounts to a sidebar primer on perfect game history and terminology. These edits render the phrase "Waddell got a measure of revenge..." confusing and out of place... revenge for WHAT? That information was clipped.

The deletion of Young's scoreless/hitless/perfect streak is a poor editing choice. So is the deletion of Young as the oldest no-hit pitcher.

The paragraphs about Young's walks per 9IP and innings pitched totals are a strange end to the section about his playing days; they more appropriately lead off his "Legacy" section. Details about changes to baseball's playing conditions are also highly appropriate to that section, and should remain. The statistic about Young's 400-inning seasons not leading the league (added, I believe, by Tecmobowl) is a good one, but a few conextual words link it even more strongly to the stat about his low ERA totals. The description of Young's physical regimen, and his eventual exit from the game, is a vivid portrait of the actual human being Cy Young and should also be kept.

Lastly, Roger Clemens did NOT surpass Young's Boston record for wins; he tied it, as the original text accurately described. The edit made this fact incorrect.

Before yet another mass "last version by" reversion, please consider the premises and explanations in the above. If you disagree, please explain why, beyond blanket "POV"/"passive voice" wipeouts. And apologies again for the lengthy edit-by-edit explanation, but watching these changes zap back and forth is getting a bit tendentious. I do look forward to more thoughtful contributions from Tecmobowl; he/she has made good edits and added good information here. Early baseball clearly energizes him/her. And so, I hope that Tecmobowl will see that editors working together will improve this article more quickly and effectively than what's been going on lately.208.120.224.97 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the type of content that goes on and on. Very simply, if you see gramatical errors... fix them...if you see minor mistakes ... fix them. Overwriting and entire edit because you don't like what was done is not appropriate. I don't care who you are, what you have done, or who said what and when. All i care about is the content. I will try to answer each of your points as best as i can. You are also expressing views that fail WP:NPOV. You must remember, wikipedia exists to educate those with no knowledge of the subject. While you may find certain points of clarification "redundant" or "filler", they are often in place for a reason. This is not to say the document is perfectly written as I am not an english expert. Very simply: poor english is not an excuse to revert an entire edit.

While you may consider certain things to be "poorly" written, the concept is clear. There is a difference between someone who plays professional baseball and someone who plays professional baseball at the major league level. If you want to includ information regarding his "style" of pitching, his physical appearance at one time or another, or anything of the sort you must provide sources. It will be removed without prejudice. It is not detrimental to the article to have unsourced information left out. For example: I have never heard his "alternate" farmer nickname and did not see one reference to it in any of the documents I reviewed during my review.

With regards to the 15-15 record - again this is one of the first times this is used in the article. It is geared (as it should be) toward people who have NO KNOWLEDGE of baseball. You may not like that, but it is certainly an acceptable way of relaying the pertinent information.

We cannot be confident about how cy young got his nickname without having a source. I provided a source and provided the appropriate information in the edit.

I did not revert the article, I rewrote it and tried to incorporate as much useful information. I am so sorry that you find my writing "clunky", but it is what it is.

I don't understand your Spiders point. There is very little said about the spiders organization in the latest reversion. There is some back story as to why and how he ended up on the St. Louis Perfectos, and that is not only appropriate, but to be expected. The league information is provided as a note that is presented in the references (at least..in the version i wrote), because it is supplementary information that might benefit the reader but is not key to the article. The early forms of the major leagues were very intricate. I see no problem with explaining one aspect of that in a simple sentence.

If young was paid well to move to the AL it was not because he revived his career. He would have been paid before his "career was revived". That being said, that would appear to be a bit of an overstatement as he had one year with a .500 record in between two 25+ win season. The triple crown is unfortunately presented poorly throughout wikipedia. It is neither an award or an official stat. It is simply a nice little "phrase" used to describe a particular circumstance that occurs in baseball.

The statements regarding Young-Carlton seem to be original research and that is frowned upon on wikipedia. Furthermore, I found one reference on the net that discussed the Harvard job. It is cited properly. You read the information one way. However, I read the source of the information and came away with a very different interpretation. As such, I stuck to the "facts" - Young was at harvard in February of 02.

Again, I'm sorry if you dislike my writing style. I don't agree that is as jumbled as you say it was. Nothing prevents other games from being notable just because this one featured two future HOF members. If you want to enhance the description of the game with well cited statements of fact, go ahead. Providing point of view statements won't cut it.

Again, I treid to incorporate previous examples of the article so as to not simply throw away what others had put in place. If you think certain pieces of information do better in other sections, there are ways of discussing that.

Your discussion of "vividness" and such, while appreciated, is not necessarily appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Most will agree this thing shouldn't read like a laundry list of facts, but that doesn't mean it should reflect anything other than the "facts". I did not fact check every single aspect of the article, so again - it is easy to fix the boston-clemens situation.

Your unwillingness to register a username is your choice and I really don't care about it. If you spent as much time fixing the problems as you do talking about them...the article would be in better shape. The version i instituted is not perfect, and the great thing about wikipedia is that it allows you to "improve" what is there. Also, when you consider how much of the article was rewritten, you might want to be a bit more understanding when you consider how many other editors work needed to be incorporated. //Tecmobowl 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

208.120.224.97 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Tecmobowl: Your complete reversion occurred 2 minutes after my last edit. Your speed in reading the above comment, weighing the versions of each of more than two dozen edits large and small, and coming to the conclusion that your preferred version was correct in every case, is remarkable.

It is impractical to complain about "unsourced information" at the same time that you remove "unnecessary citation." Moreover, most of the information you've deleted is NOT unsourced.

It is inconsistent for you to overexplain a 15-15 record for the benefit of a reader who might have no knowledge, and then delete the "Farmer Young" reference because you have no knowledge of it. Again, that reference is sourced.

My edits deleted none of your content, and very little of your text. They are quite different from your edits in that respect.

The criticism that I should "spend as much time fixing the problems as [I] do talking about them" also seems misplaced, considering that the problems I've fixed (to the extent that they're problems, of course) have been reverted by you many times.

I mentioned the username/IP issue only because another poster referred to it. I assume we all know that "anonymous edits" are considered equally valid by Wikipedia policy (if not practice).208.120.224.97 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted before I read the note on the talk page. The original "revert" was used improperly and I was simply undoing that. I'm glad you find my ability to quickly process information remarkable, but it has no baring on this discussion. Where did i remove a necessary citation? the 15-15 record is not over explained. The sentence says that young won 15 games and lost 15 games. That's about as simple as it can get without using "baseball/sports" nomenclature and simply saying 15-15. Remember - we're talking to people who don't know baseball. Find a citation for Farmer Young from a reliable and notworthy source and we'll be good to go. For further help, please view WP:CITE. You don't fix problems, you revert entire edits. Since our last discussion i have fixed and sourced the clemens issue and the 15/16 typo you mentioned earlier. Again, I don't care if you are anonymous or not, just make the content verifiable and factual to the point that it can be proven. //Tecmobowl 22:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with the intro and work together

208.120.224.97 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Tecmo: I've kept your "five different teams" preference in the first sentence. The intro still contains 4 references to Young's "professional/major league" accomplishments in the first paragraph alone; is this enough for your tastes? "1890 to 1911" is more precise than the "1890s and 1900s" reference, so I've made the switch. I've reinserted the "considered unreachable" characterization because this is almost universally accepted, and because it provides a context for Young's status, in accordance with Wikipedia policy regarding introductions. It is not a POV claim, and could easily be reinforced by a dozen ref's; I've stopped at two sources, including a past Commissioner of Baseball. The "30 wins"/"20 wins" totals have been flipped in the text, to reflect the comparative rarity and significance of the first. I dropped the "consistent performance over an extended period of time" phraseology because it repeats exactly what we've just established in paragraphs #1 and #2-- most wins ever, 15 seasons of 20 wins. I also lost the "third pitcher elected" HoF mention, as that seems to be a distinction not worthy of the intro and we can use the space. I restored the links for the various stat categories, to reinforce that these are professional records without stating such for the 6th or 7th time. I dropped the "fewest walks per 9IP" info as it's a comparatively esoteric stat alongside wins, losses, innings, etc., particularly for an intro. I have the intention of restoring BB per 9IP later in the article, during the discussion of Young's control ability where it will be more illuminating and relevant. I've tightened the perfect game mention while retaining your linked info about the 1991 codification date, etc. I've tightened the Sporting News/All-Century paragraph along the lines described above; there's no need to say Young was a player on a list of players. I've kept your reference to "editors." What now?208.120.224.97 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You just don't let up. So some people consider it unbreakable...well they also said that about ty cobb's hits, henry Aaron's home runs and most obviously - about the IRON MAN streak. Well...those all fell. Get that out of the article. Space for the lead section is not limited, so while I personally don't care one way or the other about the 3rd pitcher statement, space is not a good reason to remove content like that. I don't care how many times the word professional or major league is used - just make it accurate. Remember, he also played one season of minor league ball. Your logic on how you set things up seems completely counter to the concept - one wins many games over an extend period of time and thus wins the most games ever...not the other way around. Regardless, i just don't give a shit. References for statistics that are not disputed are useless - they are readily available in the BR link provided at the end of the article... again please review WP:CITE before doing stuff like this. This discussion is taking on an excessively dramatic nature - you don't need to explain every little edit for every little thing you do...just get the pov crap out (like unbreakable) and stick to the facts. //Tecmobowl 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In your edits you have again screwed up the facts. Note: this is not the same as me leaving in information that was incorrect. He did not play for 5 different MLB teams - he played for 5 different major league professional teams. That is a disctinct difference. I realize now in all the ridiculous edit warring over this stuff that a version which accurately relayed that information has been lost. If you don't want to put that back in, i will. //Tecmobowl 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the previous version - with the exception of an ajustment to include specific years - this is a decent introductory sentence.

'''Denton True "Cy" Young''' ([[March 29]], [[1867]] – [[November 4]], [[1955]]) was an [[United States|American]] [[baseball]] player who [[pitcher|pitched]] during the [[1890s]] through the [[1910s]]. Young played for five different [[professional baseball]] teams during his twenty-two-year career.....

let me know if you do not understand where i am going with this. This of course is factually inaccurate as he played for six professional teams (the minor league team was professional). I'm just trying to explain why i'm being such a stickler for this type of information right now.//Tecmobowl 23:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

208.120.224.97 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)I've edited the intro to your first set of specifications.

Regarding your last issue, I get what you're saying, but Young's Tri-State season would be a nuisance to wrap the first sentence around. The American League of 1901-1902 also predates the formulation of an "MLB" entity, but those years are counted; Young wouldn't have 511 wins if they weren't. However, they DON'T credit his first pro year, or else Young would have 526 career wins.

Perhaps this semi-discrepancy could find a place in the body of the article, either with Young's first pro experience, or with the changes in baseball (mound distance, no glove, etc.) What do you think?208.120.224.97 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems we have actually managed to drift toward a content related discussion and for that i thank you. I realize i might be harsh, but i've run into so many editors on here with who knows what agendas that I have a very short fuse. I would leave this part of the message on your talk page, but you don't have them. One of my major difficulties is balancing the construction of a sentence and the amount of information that needs to be communicated. Space is not limited and we appear to have some room to work within the WP:SIZE guideline. I think it is very important to communicate that Cy played professional baseball and not just major league baseball. The history of baseball is an important aspect of this article. Cy young playing 22-years of professional major league baseball and not 22-years with Major League Baseball are very different things (note- i'm informal on talk pages so don't bother with my sucky grammer). //Tecmobowl 23:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

208.120.224.97 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Check out my latest edit. It's in the article's sixth paragraph and not the first, but that also allows us to "spread out" a little better. I'm a big believer in keeping intros as tightly written as possible; you can always elaborate after that. I think we're safe sticking with MLB's sense of what Young's career dimensions were, with the addenda coming right at the top of the "Professional career" section. Does this work for you, including the wording of the edit?208.120.224.97 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• One quick note: traditionally, people only sign the end of their statements and instead use symbols like : and/or * to respond to comments. I too believe that articles should be tightly written and such, I just think that has to be balanced with the fact that relevant information needs to be included when necessary. I made four adjustments to the first section.

1. In accordance with the way other people are listed (like Hank Aaron), I identified him as a baseball player who pitched
2. I said he pitched for and not with as technically players play for teams.
3. I added "nearly" just before century with regards to his name.
4. I removed the citations 1&2 as they were not necessary in light of the recent formation. Nobody can argue that that his 511 wins (set in 1911) is still the record today - 96 years later.

And with that, i think we've got an introductory paragraph. //Tecmobowl 00:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

All that is just fine-- the only thing I want to lose is "nearly." For his era, Young got the all-time wins record as of #364 (Pud Galvin + 1). And even now, win #418 (Walter Johnson + 1) gave Young the all-time record. Since Young had 418 wins before 1907, we can stick to the century mark.

Onwards to Early Life and Pro Career. Let's drop the weight citation, since Young's weight varied over his career, which is even noted later on the page. But since he was 6-foot-2 according to various sources including Baseball-Reference, I've stuck that in... painlessly, I hope. I've mostly kept your tryout wording, and added a Young quote I found (with a source). I also left the "15 wins and 15 losses" per your above reasoning. I've reinserted the "Farmer Young" sentence with two sources; let me know how you like it.

I tightened the Spiders/AA/NL info slightly; take a look there. I've changed the paragraph that begins with Young's debut shutout. I've retained some of your phrasing, inserted some from past edits, and I've even added some additional info that wasn't in any of the previous edits. And I've reordered some of the details. Compare the two versions and see how they shake out. I'll freeze the edit at this point until we're caught up.208.120.224.97 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

One tidbit you might have overlooked, as regards "Farmer" Young... there were plenty of farmboys in the big leagues. However, the nickname "Cy", for cyclone, was also a euphemism for a farmer (also spelled "Si"), suggesting a yokel, a bumpkin, a rube, whatever. Baseball Bugs 06:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we're heading in the right direction. Dropping nearly is fine as he set the record well before 1911. I'll fix some of the citations so that the dugout reference is merged with the other references to that article. I've adjusted the farmboy statement in the early life. I can't remember where the guideline is regarding how to describe a person is, but i think the adjustment will work with you (as in - you don't use their first name..etc...etc...). I removed the height reference for several reasons. First, I just can't seem to justify its' importance. Without using it as a comparative to other people of that time, it just doesn't seem to fit. I went and looked at a number of other biographies and didn't see any references to the persons height. Plus, it does change over time, so does it really benefit the article to say at somepoint in his life he stood 6'2". It seems fairly ambiguous as to when he got the farming nickname, so i moved it to the early life section and see what you think. I removed the pdf, not because it could not be used, but because it was difficult to tell what the work was and it didn't seem to offer anything different than the dugout reference. I have also adjusted the introduction portion of the professional career. I think the new version is much more inline with a factual "recounting" than an interpretive construction of the circumstances. I'm making a few other adjustments as we speak and let me know what you think. //Tecmobowl 11:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

6-foot-2 was atypically tall when Young began-- for instance, the other two pitchers on the 1891 Spiders with Young were 5-foot-9 and 5-foot-4. The 1891 NL leader in wins was 5-foot-9. Pud Galvin, the eventual #2 man in wins, was 5-foot-8. Maybe Young's height could help supplement the NL's reaction to Young, Rusie (6'1") and Meekin (6'1").

Also, there's no need to hedge on Young being "one of" the Spiders' best pitchers by 1891... the 1890-91 Spiders pages on baseball-reference.com make it pretty clear that he was, especially after Ed Beatin's career stopped on a dime.

Everything else looks just fine. I've made some slight text adjustments, so look at those. Round 3 to come.208.120.224.97 18:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I put in a paragraph about the 1892 championship and Young's disappointing performance. I've fleshed out the 1895 championship-- leaving in the "rough and rowdy" characterization for the Baltimore team, and adding a Wikilink to "changeup." I rewrote the Browns/Spiders paragraph-- we had to lose "vice versa," since the transfer was uneven and the best St. Louis players stayed in St. Louis. I also added a sentence about how the 1899-1900 St. Louis team fared. Take a look at this part. Then I put in a short paragraph about Young, St. Louis, and Lou Criger. And that's where I've left off.208.120.224.97 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever you are - We are kicking ass and taking names! Thanks to the other users for some format changes. Give me at most a few hours and I'll have some comments on this. //Tecmobowl 12:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One fact that would be interesting, which I don't think has been fully explored here, would be to provide an actual list of the players that were transferred between teams. A quick look at the encyclopedia shows a number of guys in the starting lineup in Cleveland in 1898 who were in the St. Louis starting lineup in 1899. Little did Mr. Robison know that by being such a selfish pig, and ruining the Cleveland franchise, he would help open the door to something the National League regarded as a disaster, namely the American League. And, fittingly, his prize pitcher Mr. Young was one of those who jumped to the new league. Ol' Cy knew which side of the bread was buttered. Baseball Bugs 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to the text to remove passive voice and somethings that just seem to push the article to far toward POV. I'm trying not to remove any reference to "best" and such, but I think they need to be kept at a minimum. I have made a section below for a particular point of interest. In the meantime, what do you think? //Tecmobowl 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact Check?

Here is some text i wanted to place in the section that discusses the 1892 Spiders: This despite the fact that, one of the games ended in an 11-inning 0-0 tie.<ref name=1892spiders/>. According to B-R, young pitched a complete game shutout and in 3 starts pitched 27 innings. As he did not win any games, it seems that the above statement has some problems. Anyone else find something to the contrary? //Tecmobowl 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

When I get home tonight, I'll check Glory Fades Away and see what the author has to say about it. Baseball Bugs 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND - LEAVE ME ALONE!!!! //Tecmobowl 14:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching this article for quite awhile. You do not have the right to either take ownership of the article or to tell me I can't do work on it. Baseball Bugs 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

GO RECORD THIS TO THE WIKI POLICE - FUCK OFF!!! //Tecmobowl 15:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to, as you apparently did so already. Baseball Bugs 16:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit-palooza, cont.

I've altered some of your alterations. I shortened the paragraph about Young's 1892 achievements, and combined it with the next paragraph. I've tightened and clarified that paragraph, too. Slight changes to the 1895 Temple Cup-- it said "Young won three games" twice, so I deleted one of them; I also took out "consequently" because Young's 3 wins technically didn't clinch the series.

I moved ahead, adding a quick description of the AL raiding the NL. I slipped in Criger's move, left in your "stayed with Boston until 1909" text, and provided a citation for the Young/Carlton stat. And I restored the Boston reaction to Young at Harvard, albeit in rewritten form. More later.208.120.224.97 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. We might want to consider restating the "harvard" thing as i find a portion of it trivial. We have already established that he stopped attending school after the sixth grade. The real point (as i see it) is that he had another job in baseball. I think it should be left up to the reader to "infer" anything relative to the education part of it. //Tecmobowl 20:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)