Talk:List of Major League Baseball career wins leaders

"Since WWII"

I initially created the list as the Top 25 since the Depression, which included a few who pitched from the 1920s into the 40s. Working with the numbers, it became clear that the better break was a little later. The list was trimmed to those who pitched predominantly after WWII. That includes three who began before or during the war (Spahn, Wynn, and Feller). Feller began in 1936, hence the "after 1934" construction. Laszlo Panaflex 04:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Question"

Should Bobby Matthews be on this list? His first five years were in the National Association, and Major League Baseball doesn't consider these stats to be a part of 1876 and on.

Ties Order

As active players move up the list and into ties, they are listed as the last among those tied with a given number of wins. But retired players in ties are listed alphabetically. It would be more consistent if all the ties were listed in the order in which the players reached that number of wins. Any objections to that policy? I will go through and make the changes later unless there is a good reason not to do it that way. Cheers, Laszlo Panaflex 19:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

Would it be possible to add a "distinctive mark" - maybe an asterick to those players in the Hall of Fame. I know most of them are, but it would be interesting to see who isn't. Papercrab 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Move

Normally, I would go ahead and move an article as there are a number of blatant problems with the syntax of the title. However, I'm not sure what the best location for the article is. I would suggest "Major League Baseball All-Time Wins List", but would appreciate some input because there are a number of ways this could go. //Tecmobowl 03:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at some of the other lists shown on Category:Baseball records and there's not a lot of consistency in naming. I'd suggest something like "Major League Baseball career wins leaders". But it's more important to develop an agreed upon convention. Ideally, the WikiProject would agree to a standard convention. BRMo 03:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think "Major League Baseball career wins leaders" looks good as the new name of this article. The current title doesn't seem to connote what sport we are talking about or what league, and BRMo's suggestion seems to answer those questions. Also, let's take this discussion to the WikiProject talk page to get a larger consensus. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. I am not inclined to bring this up on the WikiProject page right now. There are a number of hotbed topics going on there, many of which involve me, and I have not been pleased with the ability of the various editors to focus on the content. How about we raise this topic at WT:NC? I think this could be the way to establish a convention of sorts. //Tecmobowl 09:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I unwatched the WikiProject page. I suspect the folks at WT:NC would consider this too specific to baseball to be of much general interest. Why don't you just go through the articles listed under Category:Baseball records and suggest a set of consistent names. If we can agree, then post a notice on the talk pages of the articles that would be moved, inviting discussion on this talk page (to keep it all in one location). If there aren't any objections after a day or two, then just do the moves. BRMo 15:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that. I'll do that as time permits and drop you a note when the "deed" has been done. //Tecmobowl 15:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So you've renamed the page in such a way that the WP:Rules require deleting half of the information, much of which would be of great interest to one looking at the page. What happened to reaching consensus about the new name? Why name it such that half of it has to be eliminated? The life has been sucked out of the page, leaving a sterile and far less informative shell. The WP:Rulebrigade strikes again. This was the last page I was contributing to any more; guess that's me out. Laszlo Panaflex 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There was somewhat of a consensus about the page move. The previous title did not specify what part of baseball we were referring to, and it shouldn't have mentioned the number "100" in the title. The current form is much more self-explanatory and actually tells us what the list is about. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the move but to the new name and the resulting justification for hacking so much information off the page. For those interested in this topic, those other lists were very useful. Now it is sterilized down to a list that merely replicates the link to the All-Time Career Wins list at MLB.com. Some of the names suggested above would have allowed keeping all that information, and would be more descriptive than the "List" format. Also as suggested above, uniform name changes should be made across the baseball records category, and even with other baseball terms (300-win club, Win, Pitcher, etc.). Instead, the name was chosen without so much as a proposal, and half the page was disappeared as a result. Laszlo Panaflex 14:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Laszlo. The article previously contained three other table of data that added to the value of this page (200-win Pitchers not in the Top 100,Top 5 active pitchers closest to the top 100 & Top 20 Since World War II.) I think it is a shame that in the process of renaming this page that this content got lost in the shuffle. -- No Guru 14:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What's more, given the lack of any response, it appears the guy who made these changes unilaterally has no real interest in the page. He came along, "wikified" it, removed the most interesting and unique information, and moved on; probably doesn't even have the page on his watch list. Those who use and contribute to the page should be the ones to decide a fitting name and whether those lost tables belong. Laszlo Panaflex 01:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Name Change Proposal

As I stated above, I believe that those who use and contribute to this page should be the ones to decide a fitting name and whether the lost text and tables belong. Thus I am making a proper proposal to be discussed and voted upon by those interested:

(a) I propose that the "List" format be dropped and replaced with a name that is not constrained by restrictive WP:Rules;

(b) I propose the name "Major League Baseball Career Leaders in Pitching Wins," slightly changing the proposal above by BRMo

(c) I propose that the discussion and lost tables should be returned to the page as directly relevant to the subject, informative, and useful to those interested in the subject and to those searching for that information.

Lastly I propose that discussion on this topic should remain open for a week, and that no sweepng changes be made until there is some measure of agreement. If users decide to keep the page the way it is, fine. But we should not have to merely accept the destruction of the page and the useful information it previously contained. Laszlo Panaflex 01:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply sick and tired of everyone on here bitching and moaning about the way wikipedia is run. This is a perfect example. Having a list of the 100 players with the most career wins is fine. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of topics and it is not a place for OR or anything else. This article (or list) is not to be used to describe "players with more than 200 wins but aren't in the top 100 for all-time wins". This is not a place for expert research or baseball "professors". This is an encyclopedia for the masses. Stop complaining and learn to discuss. //Tecmobowl 05:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who made the changes without discussion, and you did not respond to efforts at discussion above -- indeed, you call our efforts to discuss "bitching and moaning." There was certainly no consensus formed for making the changes you made. The page did not contain original research, just discussion and further breakdowns of the numbers for those who are interested. In fact, the previous format was much more encyclopedic than the current bare List. The page now could just as well be pared down to the link to MLB, for it is merely a mirror of that list. I have proposed here that we discuss the name. You've made your case. Are you willing to hear what anyone else thinks? Or are we supposed to just "stop complaining"? Laszlo Panaflex 19:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I support Laszlo's suggestion. In fact whatever will turn this article from a lifeless list into something more valuable has my support. -- No Guru 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Laszlo. Although there were problems with the old name that justified a move, there was not discussion or consensus on the major deletion of content. One suggestion is rather than having two lists (one for the top 100 and the next for those with more than 200 wins but not in the top 100), just make it one list—pitchers with more than 200 wins. The reader can figure out who the top 100 are. I don't think the lists were original research--they are verifiable information. The only list that may be questionable was the one since World War II—I'm not aware that the war is a standard breaking point for statistics. BRMo 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

LasszloI made some changes, that's it... everyone on here thinks that more=better. This is not necessarily the case. This is not the place for expert research, this is not the place for indiscriminate lists, and this is not the place for baseball fans to spew stuff. Wikipedia is a place where everyone can come and learn about things they have no idea about. It is beyond ridiculous to show the top 100 winningest pitchers and then supplement the information with all the people that have 200, 201, 202, & 203 career wins. That didn't quite occur to me until we moved the article. Either make the list the "top" or make the list "pitchers with 200 or more career wins". The previous "incarnation" of the article spewed information that just isn't relevant. There is currently an article that lists the top 500 home run hitters in baseball history, that article is ridiculous. No there wasn't a "discussion" as I am not going to discuss every single edit I make to a page. Nor do i have to. I didn't fail to discuss the topic, I just didn't respond to you in five minutes because, believe it or not, i do have a life outside of this place. If you are sensing some hostility, as many others have, then good, because it is there. You people toss words like consensus and "failure to discuss" without reading the relevant pages. WP:CON is a product of community support. Identifying the "wants and needs" of a few group of editors, MYSELF INCLUDED, does not mean there is a consensus. //19:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecmobowl (talk • contribs)

Since you reference WP:CON I think it is worth ruminating on the very important sentence from that policy page:When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation. -- No Guru 05:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Closest Active Players Table

It appears to me that the table listing the closest active players is inaccurate. Is this so, or am I missing something?

Dead pitchers or what?

The sign † for active pitchers looks more like the sign you put next to the pitchers who passed away! PLEASE change † to * or something similar.

ICE77 -- 24.130.223.181 (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ranking

What's with the random hit-and-miss listing of ranks in the table? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not random. Where players are tied, only the first one alphabetically has the rank number listed. Coemgenus 15:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! It still looks silly. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Mathews should be removed

Bobby Mathews is listed with 297 wins. He does not have 297 MLB wins. He does have 297 wins in professional major leagues, but not 297 within the NL-AL. MLB.com doesn't list him in the leaders. Since this list is for wins accumulated in the MLB framework (NL and AL) Mathews should be removed. Arnabdas (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

List entry criteria

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recent edits indicate a lack of consensus on the criteria for an entry on this list (e.g. list size). In similar discussions at Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_leaders_in_career_stolen_bases#Too_many_entries, there seemed to be a consensus that objective criteria based on reliable sources be used to determine membership in the list. Applicable guidelines to be followed include:

• WP:LISTN: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
• WP:NLIST: "entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections)."

I would expect to see sufficient sources that mention in prose that player X is ranked No. Y on the MLB win list, or discuss the "top-XXX" or "players with XXX wins" as a whole group. My initial instinct is that seeing mention in Rick Honeycutt's article that he is No. 491 on the career win list would be trivia, which is likely why it is not in his article. Without research, I assume that the top-100 is notable or maybe it should be 200 wins.—Bagumba (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

You are invited to add your support for proposals for the list entry criteria below or to propose new ones:

200 wins

I believe a performance-based cutoff is preferable. 200 wins seems to be a reasonable threshold that most readers would agree upon as being notable. isaacl (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Though I proposed this threshold, just to get the ball rolling, I did not place my comment in this section (which didn't exist at the time), and have no objection to any other performance-based threshold. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

1. And 200 wins currently comes it at No. 109, so they are comparable for now.—Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
2. 200 and top 100 are almost the same total of entries, but top 100 is too arbitrary. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
3. 200 is considered a significant milestone. The only other win count that's given much attention is the much-talked of 300. Zepppep (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Top 100

Others

1. I also like a performance-based cutoff, but I prefer 150 wins, as it gives us a number (250) of players similar to the hits and home runs tables for batters. Also, it puts the cutoff right at Hall of Famer Dizzy Dean, which is aesthetically pleasing :) . -Dewelar (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
2. 150 wins sounds good to me as well. john k (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   Note that "major league" "200 wins" gets 709 hits while "major league" "150 wins" gets 67. WP:LISTN would seem to be better met with 200, not to mention instinct says that round 100's are generally more often mentioned.—Bagumba (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is so much better. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Zepppep for cleaning this up.—Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland Alexander

I see no reason why this list should not also list him by the common name, Grover Cleveland Alexander, used in his article.—Bagumba (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree - I had changed this in the past and EdelweissD changed it back every time. I'd also like to see the title of the page changed to something like "List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 200 or more career wins" to curb reverts by that user. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LISTNAME, "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject." The current title reflects the general subject. I dont think it needs to include the specific entry criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand while EdelweissD is doing this either. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Trut-h-urts man: I moved the page to clarify what it is we're containing here. No vagaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"Most career wins" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Most career wins has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 15 § Most career wins until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

should the most playoff wins list be added to this page to stream line it?

I have seen other sports stats and many have regular season stats and post season stats as well. So i was just wondering if there should be like a top 25, 50 or something in playoff wins? It would just be a sub section under the regular season chart. 158.135.172.117 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)