Talk:20–20–20 club

Untitled

Thanks to the folks who have been working on the 30-30 club .... I borrowed some of their intro.TeganX7 23:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

While I am all in favor of adding information, and am not at all against stolen bases .... I don't think it is a good idea to start adding other statistical superlatives here .... otherwise we start getting the players who did this and stole 20 bases .... slugged .450 ... batted .350 ... etc, etc. The external links will permit further research for those interested.

Further, the near misses are people who got close to actually joining the the club mentioned in the title of the article. This article does not address stolen bases. It is debatable as to wether or not near misses are more or less important than players who added 20 stolen bases to their resume, however, the scope of this article does not include stolen bases or other statistics of that nature.

I'm not sure if you are new to Wikipedia or the internet in general, but for future reference, typing "LEAVE IT ALONE" in caps is something that you should consider avoiding, as it is considered rude by some users. If you have further questions, you can communicate here, or on my Talk Page.TeganX7 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to decide? What is rude is you deleting like a little dictator. By the way, I NEVER wrote leave it alone all in caps. If you were offended, good. It comes from having a HUGE stick up your butt. Look at the quadruple double. No one has even achieved a quintuple double but it is mentioned in that article, and it is pertinent. The only reason there isn't a 20-20-20-20 club is you choke on it by the time you say it. If Granderson gets a 20th stolen base, the entire planet will hear about it, and you will apparently still think it is "irrelevent data". How is it irrelevent? EXACTLY what is irrelevent about it? Your inane commentary above about batting averages aside, no one is going to confuse an achievement like 20 stolen bases with other minutae like slugging or hitting percentages which are clearly in a different category from this. Just because you decide it is irrelevent doesn't make it so. And the basketball example is about as good a template as could be found for this. Why don't you stop and use some common sense before you do things? And know what you are talking about before you write things like "leave it alone in caps" when IT NEVER HAPPENED. Get out of Mom's basement once and a while and maybe you wouldn't take additions to Wikipedia by your intellectual and moral superiors so personally. If you were TRULY interested in decorum and fertile discussion of the issue, your first move would have been to open a discussion on the pertinence of what you considered "irrelevent". Then you could have been schooled on why you were wrong and no problem would have arisen. You chose a different course, became offended that your arrogant and unjustified deletion was put back and here we are. Gee, what fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, sir. You are correct in that you did not cap "leave it alone" in caps. You did write "At least" in caps. That is my fault in accusing you of something you clearly did not do. Please accept my apologies in this matter. I again ask that you refrain from adding data that is not pertinent to the topic that this article is covering, which is a particular hitting group. Stolen bases, while a very worthy and under-appreciated statistic, are not relevant to the discussion of hitters who accomplished this particular feat.

The inclusion of players who came very close to this rare feat is illustrative of how difficult it has been to achieve, even for accomplished hitters. That is, these examples are used to establish a credible relevancy for the discussion of this group.

It is also been my experience that many articles begin having additions made to them with information that begins to get more and more off topic from the article. This tends to reduce the clarity of the article. If stolen bases were to be added, it wouldn't be long before an ever increasing mound of statistical additions were added to clutter the article.

I hope this makes clear the intent of the article, and why the addition of your information was an irrelevance. Please do not take that personally. I hope you will continue to make worthy and informative additions to the various pages on the topic of baseball.TeganX7 04:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the simple solution to the problem here is to start a second article for the 20-20-20-20 club. I formed the second page and linked it to this article.

While I am sure that this was a good intention, in general it is a good policy to keep articles focused.TeganX7 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What I take "personally" is arrogant people like you. Delete first, then discuss like you own the article. Then YOU take it upon yourself to INVENT the 20-20-20-20 club. If that were a legitimate name AS I POINTED OUT WITH THE BASKETBALL EXAMPLE it would belong here. YOU are the one who've decided this. Everyone else on the planet recognizes the significance of adding 20 stolen bases to the 20-20-20 club, as ESPN just did with sportsdesk. Why not change your name to God while you're at it? Anyone searching for this achievement will first come to this article and then have to notice at the bottom your invented title for a new club. Finally, this is not a hitting achievement as you MISCHARACTERIZE it. It is hitting and running. You have to be able to make it to third. This is why it is completely legitimate to add stolen bases, and no one but you would worry that someone would add a batting average (which by the way is part of your hitting mantra isn't it). You do not determine relevence. Consensus does, and the sporting world has already noted the relevance. Deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Discuss the appropriateness of adding a note about the 3 men who've added 20 stolen bases to the 20-20-20 club article, versus creating a second article titled 20-20-20-20 club to deal with the information.

The newly invented 20-20-20-20 club article references an SI article on the web by link at the end. This is merely a journalist using the term 20-20-20-20 as a title. ESPN did not use this term, neither did TSN. Why? Got me. No one refers to the 20-20-20-20 club, while the 20-20-20 club is an instantly recognizable term. That said, there is consensus throughout the sports world and throughout sporting journalism that also stealing 20 bases while joining the 20-20-20 club is a noteworthy, even rarer achievement. The originator of the article insists stolen bases are irrelevent, clearly the consensus in the sports world is that they are not. Clearly 20 stolen bases is associated with the 20-20-20 club. The originator of this article has three times deleted my small, pertinent addition and has now obscured the matter further by creating a small stump of an article labeled 20-20-20-20 club. A label that is neither instantly recognizable, or generally utilized. All so they can get their way. Deleting is innapropriate. No editing occurred. The creation of the second article was a means to get their way and end the issue as he/she wanted. I will quote what this person wrote on their user page:

"I also just started an experimental format in baseball record keeping. I feel the current system creates too many pages for related information that could just as easily be kept on a single (albeit larger) page."

Apparently, this only applies if someone hasn't had the gall to tell this person they are wrong. Apparently stumpy little articles with invented names for the occasion are then a preferred means of presenting related information. Finally I would refer everyone to the basketball example where the quadruple double, and the as yet unobtained quintuple double cohesively, cogently exist as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a review of 69.123.66.156's comments shows a rather emotional resopnse to having their work deleted. Having spent time editing articles, I feel too many articles loose focus as editors start adding information that is not pertinent to the focus of hte article's subject.

Before berating me again, 69.123.66.156 mentions that I wrote an experimental page on hit records as a format test, and as a means to suggest consolidating information. This page consolidates and expands the records on just one topic: hits. I think 69.123.66.156 has taken something personally that should not have been. All I argue is that articles should maintain a focus. If 20-20-20-20 is permitted, what is to stop (as example):20-20-20-.320 avg or 20-20-20-.400 slg or 20-20-20-20-1.000 OPS, etc? True, the 20-20-20-20 article was created to attempt to stop repeated re-editing, but if 69.123.66.156 is right that this information is derivative, then why bother adding it in the first place? I think just because an interesting factoid is mentioned on ESPN (as it was, despite contentions to the contrary), it does not automatically warrsnt addition to the nearet convenient article. To reiterate, I think a review of 69.123.66.156's posts above will show that he reacted personally, and moreso is now more interested in personal humiliation than anything else. TeganX7 13:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Whether 20-20-20-20 becomes a page of it's own or an asterisk on the 20-20-20 page, as a discussion, is really feeling a bit trifly. I will say that my vote will be with TeganX7 simply because of the vulgarity of the unsigned user 69.123.66.156 (not because he/she is unsigned, but because of uncivil comments like "if you were offended, good", you "have a HUGE stick up your butt" and "change your name to God"). Thank you Tegan for only responding appropriately and showing constraint. Even more impressive IMHO - actually apologizing to someone clearly attacking you personally based on your good faith edits. Keep up the good work Keeper76 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil comments by an editor are not a valid reason for including or not including material in an article. Please focus arguments on article content and what the sources say, not on editor behaviour. I've posted identical messages on the talk pages of User:TeganX7 and User:69.123.66.156. --Coppertwig 23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Coppertwig for your response, and I agree that the article content and discussion is what is supposed to be happening here. Unfortunately, only one of the disputing editors is actually contributing a viewpoint, the other editor is merely slinging mud towards that editor and his/her viewpoint. My retort was more of an exhortation to the unsigned 69.123.66.156 to please do exactly what you are requesting, which is stay on topic, if he/she would like his/her viewpoint to be taken seriously. The irony I was attempting to portray is that 69.123.66.156 may hold the prevailing viewpoint but he/she was actually destroying (IMHO) any chance of it prevailing with consensus because of the (IMHO) attacks. More flies with honey... Keeper76 14:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge After reading several articles under the baseball records category, I agree that the article 20-20-20-20 club should be merged with 20-20-20 club. The other instance (precedence) similar to this one is the 3000 hit club, which includes a subcategory called 4000 hit club, instead of an article of its own. Keeper76 00:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just Delete it. No unique content. User:Pedant 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Major edit 9/13/07

Okay, I went at this with a chainsaw, removed the "conversational tone", cut a lot of the "close calls" (16 triples isn't even close to 20), and cut out the "trends" section...Wikipeida is not a place for original research. I have no objection to re-adding any of the content as long as it's sourced properly. A polite reminder, too: Remember the trifecta. I'm not seeing it practiced a lot here. --UsaSatsui 00:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Brutal, but necessary edits. Thanks UsaSatsui -- Keeper76 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability

This term is almost a neologism. It's not widely used. I'm thinking of taking it to AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This club is referenced rather commonly when discussing these players. It is true that it is rarer to find an article exclusively discussing this club (though I did find one and included it in the article). Like with any "club" in sports, it is rarely (not never, just rarely) discussed unless a player is closing in or actually joins the club. The article I cited shows that the term dates back to (at least) 1979.

I will certainly respect your decision, should you choose to go to AFD with it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

is a term ....

I struck out "is a term" in the lead "20–20–20 club is a term applied to the group of batters..." per Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Fixing_bad_articles.2Fstubs. Simpler to use is on its own.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 20–20–20 club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.omaha.com/article/20110417/MONEY/704179949
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130181714/http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/07/bengie-molina-on-cycle-being-s.html to http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/07/bengie-molina-on-cycle-being-s.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)