Talk:St. Louis Cardinals/Archive 1

Future seasons?

Following up on the 2006 discussion below, what's the current standard for posting updates as time goes on? Recentitis is definitely a problem, as there is a ton of information available about any sports team and people will be adding new info all the time. I'm all for keeping the page updated with all pertinent current information, like rosters, records, etc, but there needs to be standards put in place for how to historically address a recent season. I personally like the idea of breaking it down by decade, possibly with a rapidly changing section about the current season. FE, right now, the Scott Rolen-TLR feud is big news about the club. However, the same thing happened with Ozzie and TLR in Smith's last season and with Auggie II and Steve Carlton in the late sixties. I like having that info on the page, but I'm not sure about how to organize it. Phyrkrakr (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Rivals

I disagree with the rivals that were listed. The Red Sox and Yankees can not really be called "rivals" because 1. the Cardinals never know when they will play them, and 2. the Cards hardly ever play them. The Astros should not be considered a rival, either, YET. Rivalries need time to breathe, maybe a generation or so. The Astros were nobody until the two teams were lumped in the same division in 1994. Contrarily, both the Dodgers and, more recently, the Mets are historical rivals. These two teams consistently fill Busch stadium regardless of their records. The Dodgers rivalry goes back to the 3-game play-off for the Pennant in the '40s and the NLCS in '85. The Mets rivalry culminated with the '85 Pennant run but was rooted in the Keith Hernandez trade. The Mets are still known as "Pond Scum" at Busch Stadium, so the rivalry seems to be real.

Otherwise, I believe listing rivals is a unique idea that adds to the information and enjoyment of the page. BUT, I believe each listed rivalry should have it's own link justifying the rivalry. It would be interesting to see how one team's perceived "rivalry" is another team's "lost weekend" series, attendence wise. --CrazyTalk 22:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This "main rivals" stuff that some anon has been pushing (and also pointing to mostly non-existent articles) is, on its face, Point Of View. Not that it matters much, it's only baseball, not World Politics. But I like your idea. Instead of some generic "main rivals" viewpoint, there should be articles on the rivalries. There are, in some case: Cubs-Sox, Giants-Dodgers, Yankees-Red Sox, etc. Unless someone can cite info in an article, they shouldn't be listing "main rivals" as a standalone item. FYI, I'm a Cubs fan, and I couldn't agree more with "pond scum" in reference to the Mets. That's polite, though. When my bro and I talk about the Mets, it's always prefixed with the "f-ing word". 1969 still hurts. d:) Wahkeenah 22:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree that the main rivals should only be the Cubs and Astros. No interleague teams should be listed under rivarlries since interleague play is new and and rare. Darwin's Bulldog 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Dodgers and Mets are NOT their rivals, their ravals are the Cubs, Astros, and Royals. I don't know if any of you have ever seen a Royals vs. Cardinals game but it's BIG. It may be inter-league, but it is a battle to prove who is the superiour Missouri team Saksjn 13:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)saksjnSaksjn 13:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cardinals v. Royals is a contrived "rivalry." It's manufactured by MLB and Bud Selig. 128.111.97.64 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the old, hapless, AL St. Louis Browns (which were briefly the Milwaukee Brewers in 1901)? They were not really strong rivals from what I understand, but given the overlap in names, I think it would be worthwhile to clarify the relationship. This seems like a reasonable reference: SportsEcyclopedia Skadron 01:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

7th Division Title

Is there any evidence to back-up the St. Louis claim for their 9th division crown? (such as an actual award...) Popular allegations, especially in only one city, does not seem to have enough weight for such a claim.

The Cardinals make that claim on their website[1] (click on the link for "more on 2001", it's the last paragraph). It is a minority claim, that is why it is merely listed in the footnote with the disclaimer "could be".--CrazyTalk 15:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Sporting News Baseball Record Book, which of course is a St.Louis-based publication, not that there's anything wrong with that, shows the Cardinals as having "tied" for first place in 2001, and having lost the Division Series (Houston is shown the same way). Whether they were "awarded" the division title is a moot point, because (1) the league regarded them as the wild card, for playoff bracket designation and (2) they were out after the first round. The only "award" I know of is whatever locker-room T-shirts the team might come up with. Maybe this year they'll get the only award that matters... the Bud Selig Memorial Award, otherwise known as the World Series Trophy. d:) Wahkeenah 15:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

According to Baseball-Almanac.com, a very reputable source, the Cards were not co-champs in 2001. Likewise, the Red Sox article mentions nothing about them being AL East co-champs in 2005. The Dodgers' article also neglects to mention them being co-champs this year. The Cardinals' own website is biased and therefore not reputable in this matter. I'm going to edit 2001 from the list of division titles. The actual Major League Baseball website would be a much better source than the Cards' website.Politician818 01:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

MLB and the Baseball HOF both view the Cardinals as co-champs in 2001, with MLB noting it as the first shared championship in MLB history. I have the sources listed in the National League Central and I-55 Series articles, which can be added here. Agne 06:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: It seems that the sourced references from MLB and to the HOF were inadvertantly removed. I have restored them. Agne 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hall of Fame site, which does mention the "co-championship," also lists every year in which the Cards won the NL Central. 2001 is excluded from that list of years. It says: 1996 2000 2002 2004 2005. (This must have not been updated, as the Cards won it again this year.) "Co-champions" is more likely an informal reference to the Cards having the same record as the Astros. The Dodgers article does not state that the Dodgers were NL West co-champs this year. The Red Sox article does not mention that the Red Sox were AL East co-champs last year. It's really inconsistent to make an exception for the 2001 Cardinals.Politician818 23:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well we can not control what the editors of the Red Sox or Dodgers pages do so that is not a valid argument. For all we know, there might not be as reliable of sources for them to include. Secondly, your argument about the HOF site doesn't make any sense. It splits up the different kinds of championship and 2001 was the only kind of co-championship the Cardinals have had to this date. No one is arguing that the Cardinals were the NL Central Champion (singular like the rest of the years listed) but they were clearly co-champions which the HOF backs up. As such 2001 belongs in any accurate tally about the number of Cardinals division championships. Agne 07:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A good guideline would be to see how the Lords of Baseball regard the Dodgers and Padres of 2006, who also finished with the same record, in the NL West. Wahkeenah 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agne, there's no need to get nasty here. First of all, you have control over the Dodgers and Red Sox articles. You have as much a right as anyone else to edit them. You can use the Cardinals' situation in 2001 as a source for both articles. Secondly, if the Cardinals were "co-champions" in 2001, they'd have as much a claim to the title as the Astros. You're having it both ways when you say that the Astros were "the champion" while the Cardinals were "co-champions." "Co-champions" means that both teams get equal billing. Finally, there's no such thing as official "co-champions" in pro sports.Politician818 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you are interpreting this as nasty but the content of other articles is still irrelevant. The pertinent policies are WP:V - is it verifiable? Answer: Yes and the article is duly sourced. WP:RS-Are the sources reliable? Answer: Yes with the Baseball HOF and MLB.com. The Astros were considered champions in playoff seeding but officially they were co-champions. And co-championships obviously do happen in pro-sports and the MLB cite notes the historical nature of 2001 being the first co-championship in MLB. Agne 06:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I just need to add here that that same Baseball Hall of Fame website neglects to mention that the Boston Red Sox were AL East co-champs in 2005. Both the Red Sox and Yankees finished with 95-67 records that year. This contradiction puts that site's credibility into question. [2] Politician818 08:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC) If the Cards were co-champs in 2001, then the Sox were co-champs in 2005.Politician818 08:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are honestly doubting the credibility of the official site of the Baseball Hall of Fame? Agne 08:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since it contradicts itself. If the Cardinals were co-champs in 2001, then the Red Sox were co-champs in 2005. It's either BOTH or NEITHER, not just one. At the very least, the website screwed up.Politician818 10:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC) The Hall of Fame website only lists the Red Sox as a wild card in the 2005 season, despite their having the same win-loss record as the Yankees.Politician818 10:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is a contradiction. The Red Sox never request from MLB a co-championship designation. (For whatever reason they have. My Boston-born fiance says it's probably because they don't want something tainted by sharing with the Yankees). The Cardinals, however, actively sought recognition--of which MLB and the HOF recognize. I would bring up you concern about the HOF as a reliable source up on the WP:RS or the Baseball Project. Currently the official Hall of Fame site is considered one of the most reliable sources you can get with baseball related articles. Downgrading it's status as a RS will affect a lot of other articles and would need to be promptly addressed. Agne 19:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would the Red Sox have to request co-championship designation? If they were the co-champs, then they were the co-champs. Also, baseball-almanac.com, a very reputable source, claims that there is no such thing as a division co-championship. Finally, even with the co-championship, the Cardinals would have six and a half NL Central titles, not seven. 2001 would count as half a title for the Astros and half for the Cardinals. They can't each have one for the same season. Even the Hall of Fame website makes a distinction between the division championships that the Cardinals won outright with 2001.Politician818 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Again, that's an independent site. The only opinion that matters is that of MLB itself. If MLB says those teams are co-champions, then they are. If they say they're not, then they're not. If they're silent on the matter, then they're probably saying it's irrelevant. Wahkeenah 15:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The hall of fame website does add an "asterik" and explanation (the same as this article). No one is arguing that the asterik should be removed or that the article should claim that the Card's won the 2001 championship outright. Rather we have two reliable sources that verify that the Cards were co-champions of the NL Central in 2001 and the article accurately reflects that with the proper explanation. It would POV to disregard reliable sources that verify facts that you don't like simply because you don't like what they say. Agne 07:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hall of Fame is a private institution, not an arm of the major leagues. What does Major League Baseball itself have to say about these situations? Wahkeenah 13:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Best Fans in Baseball?"

I'd love it if someone could explain this idea...what is that statement supposed to mean? I've heard it on TV lots of times so I don't doubt it's inclusion in the article, I just want someone to make sense of it. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 11:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

All it means is that we St. Louisans are very supportive and rarely overtly hostile. In places like Chicago and Philadelphia people get beat up for supporting the away team, but that just doesn't happen here. But, in truth, you would have to have been at Busch Stadium when Mark McGwire or Albert Pujols stepped up to the plate to really understand what that statement means. We just really love our baseball. Cabez 20:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Anecdote (true one - I was there): The year McGwire hit 70 homeruns, the Cards were not involved in pursuing a playoff spot - McGwire was THE reason to follow the Cards. One Sunday late in his record chase, he was kicked out in his first at bat for arguing strikes. The crowd went nuts and the game was almost forfeited because of this. The following day when the umpires were introduced (I was there), they were given a 5 minute standing ovation ("Sorry we acted badly, you did what was right."). THAT is the kind of behavior that defines "Best Fans in Baseball." Kind of hard to cite though! -Quartermaster 13:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that. Of course, the concept of "best fans" is totally subjective. McGwire appreciated them because they actually showed up, as opposed to the oceans of empty seats in Oakland. I could easily argue that the Cubs fans are the best, because they keep pouring their hard-earned money into this perpetual loser (no bitterness here, no sir). However, aside from monetary contributions, the fans that probably support their team the most strongly are the Yankees fans, who have a history of interfering with on-field play to the their team's benefit. Now those are some useful fans. Wahkeenah 14:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be an area to be approached by stating (and citing) "Cardinals fans have been described by x as 'The Best Fans in Baseball' which is, of course, a subjective statement which can be claimed by other teams' fans." I think it's more valid to point out that this is an advertising slogan (it is) rather than an objective fact. Actually, I think the long suffering Cubby fans truly can claim the same "best fans in baseball" phrase exactly as you state.

If the Cardinals and/or any other team actually use that as a slogan, you should be on safe ground citing it with no fear of contradiction. Well, almost none. Wahkeenah 23:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing this may be difficult, but I know I have heard many players say things like "You haven't played baseball until you've played in St. Louis." I also want to say that, because he was so overwhelmed by the quality of the St. Louis fan prescence, Mark McGwire worked to convince Jim Edmonds to join the team. Again, needs citation, but it's a direction. Topher0128 16:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Consider where he came from. Big Mac was probably just to have people in the stands. Wahkeenah 22:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

While any team (except the Marlins ;) can claim "the best fans in baseball" it's a widely reported media trope seen in the NY Times [3] and the San Diego Union-Tribune [4], among other places. I didn't really find a source for the claim, but I seem to remember ESPN pushing the idea starting around 2001, and it's now stated as a matter of fact by the team, along with the "baseball heaven" tagline. You can find anecdotal evidence all over the place about respectful, knowledgeable fans in St. Louis, like Ken Griffey's 500th HR and Biggio's last game in St. Louis. I'm pretty sure they still boo Barry, though.Phyrkrakr (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Boo Barry? Wasn't that the name of a cereal? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

THE REAL RIVALS

Ok im going to set the record straight. The two main rivals are the Cubs and the Royals. I know some people dont consider the Royals to be a rival because its and inerleague match up, but i asure you it is a rivalry. Ive been to plenty of Card/Royals games in Kansas City and the hostilaty is crazy. The tention is high and theres almost more Cardinals fans than Royals. Theres alot of smack talk and good games, even though the Royals suck. Ive had a blast at many of these games and they felt like a fierce and healthy rivalry to me. --J. Licata

It's a rivarly that's artificial, thanks in part mainly due to the "genius" of Bud Selig. The only "Real" rivals that the Cardinals have are the Cubs. Darwin's Bulldog 15:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's totally artificial, as it has to do with statewide "braggin' rights". And the Royals were formed a long time before Selig came along. However, you're right that it pales next to Cubs-Cardinals, which is one of the fiercest rivalries in the game, going back to the 1880s. Wahkeenah 15:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For two teams to be rivals, they have to be in the same division. They have to play each other the maximum number of times possible during the season. The Cardinals and Royals are not rivals, regardless of how excited the fans are during the games. The Cardinals' archrivals are the Cubs, just as the Giants' archrivals are the Dodgers and the Yankees' archrivals are the Red Sox.Politician818 06:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, wait a minute. You cannot honestly say that two teams have to be in a division to be rivals. One of the biggest rivalryies in baseball was the Yankees and the Dodgers. From the days they both inhabited New York, they have been bitter rivals, which held on even when they went to the other coast. It may have petered of as of late in the eyes of younger fans, but it was big in it's prime, between two in different leagues, and eventually two coasts. The same can be said for the National League Giants, who Gherig mentioned in his famous speech as "a team you'd give an arm and a leg to beat". Nowadays, there's an intense rivalry between the New York Yankees and New York Mets, which has finally gotten a chance to be played out with interleague play. Just because two teams are not in the same division or league does not mean they're not rivals. Silent Wind of Doom 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have heard that many Royals fans believe there is a rivalry. (I was in KC for a three-game weekend this year; wonderful people, great time.) However, Cards fans don't see it that way. To Cards fans there are two rivalries: the old one with the Cubs (always fun, so much history) and the new one with the Astros, since those two teams are always fighting it out for the division since the Central Division was created. Fan-1967 00:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a cards fan, and the Royals are rivals of the cards. I have friends who are Royals fans, and when the Cardinals play the Royals, it's big. REAL BIG. Saksjn 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)saksjnSaksjn 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Cardinals fans are still irked about 1985. They just can't let it go. Meanwhile, I think you'll agree that the Cubs are still the primary rivals of the Cardinals. Wahkeenah 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would never say the Cardinals-Royals are not rivals, but the Cards-Cubs is definitely a whole other level of rivalry, and the article should make note of this. I am not sure if I consider the Astros rivals of the Cardinals though. They have certainly played same great games and postseason series recently, but I believe the Astros-Cardinals is more of a feeling of competitive respect and knowing that the other is your chief competition for a playoff spot. If they both weren't competing for the division title or in a playoff series, it wouldn't be the same. Whereas the Cards-Cubs and Cards-Royals go up to another level entirely in the playoffs (even though they only played the Royals in '85 and haven't played the Cubs in the postseason since they were in the AA). Timpcrk87 00:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The telling sign is the number of visiting-team caps in evidence when they play in Chicago or St. Louis. Wahkeenah 02:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Logo

For some reason the team logo does not appear on my screen :( Does anyone else have this problem? If I click on the blank white box, I do get the logo. BobJones 00:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I cant see it either.Sir hugo 12:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense. I temporarily substituted the Cubs logo, and it worked fine. You'll probably have to find an Admin. Wahkeenah 22:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

After some experimenting I found out that this logo doesnt like being 100px. I did a substitution for the full infobox code and raised the pixel count to 101 and it now works.Sir hugo 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing. Maybe that cardinal didn't like those "goose eggs". Wahkeenah 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cubs & Cards fan input requested

The article on the Cubs-Cardinal rivalry, I-55 Series has been nominated for Good Article status, and I would like to get some input on things that can improve the article. Agne 00:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

started discussion at Talk:I-55_Series, since I'm sure Cubs and Cards fans can discuss this together ;)

--Spiffy sperry 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge (2007 St. Louis Cardinals)

Why this page exists, I am not quite sure, especially when 2006, 1982, etc.. St. Louis Cardinals pages do not exist. Why would one for a future season exist? --Holderca1 16:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It exsists because I'm going to follow the entire season. I.E. box scores for each game, transactions, injuries, etc. -- crimsonblood820 12:44, 2 November (CT)

While I respect your enthusiam, having box scores for every game would fall under WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. We don't even have box scores for every WS game. I haven't looked at it in depth that much but [5] might be doing what you are looking at doing. Wikipedia typically frowns on keeping that type of current info on here as it is more of a news item than an encylopedia item. Are you going to be able to update it every day? I would imagine that some time between April and October, real life will call and you won't be able to keep up with it. I often find myself wanting to edit a million things at once, especially when I was new here. At any rate, welcome to Wikipedia, I will let some others chime in on this, to see what they think. --Holderca1 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. So long as there are Card fans around on Wikipedia, even an incomplete but indepth article would be great to have. So long as it's sourced, summarises beyond what a news article would provide... though I encourage you to write detailed game reports for Wikinews, I can't personally view it as "an indiscriminate collection of information". The collections refered to tend to be "People who sang in music videos while standing on one foot", whereas the 2007 team is essentially its own unique entity, with a beginning, middle, and end. -- Zanimum 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, he is wanting to have the box scores for every game on there. Do you know how long an article would be with 162 box scores on it would be? If he would create the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals page to show what he has in mind would help. I believe the 2006 season merits it over the 2007 season since it has already happened and they in fact won the World Series. --Holderca1 21:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Denver Broncos season exists although its much shorter; I'm not saying the 2006 merits it over the 2005 season, just any sourced content that looks at overall trends, not necessarily even keeping a full season worth of score tallies, would engage fans of the team looking for summarised content. -- Zanimum 15:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as a game summary of every game is not included, the article would just be too long if they were, I am okay with that. But I would still like to see the 2006 article created to get an idea of what he has in mind. The 2007 season doesn't start until March/April so there is plenty of time. Also, if a 2007 season article exists, we are obligated to create one for every season or that would be POV to current events. --Holderca1 15:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This hasn't been discussed in over a month so I'm taking the merge tag offInvisibleman5108026 06:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Article size & FA

I have created the article History of the St. Louis Cardinals and copied the entire history section of this page over to that page. With that done, the history section of this article can be trimmed down dramatically to a summary, perhaps by decade. I think this is as good of time as any to get this up to FA status. See the New England Patriots page as a guide, it passed FA. --Holderca1 18:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want a user box?

Would fans be interested in a STL user box for their user page? I am currently displaying what is below on mine. I could make a template out of it. However, some work with the colors needs to be done. I am no artist and will not work on that more.

{{Userbox|border-c=#F00|border-s=1|id-c=#fff|id-s=18|id-fc=#F00|info-c=#F55|info-s=8|info-fc=#fff|id=<font face="Times New Roman">STL<font>|info=This user is a [[St. Louis Cardinals]] fan.}}

STLThis user is a St. Louis Cardinals fan.

-Will Pittenger 04:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't be able to use the Cardinals logo in a template, can't use fair use images in templates. --Holderca1 11:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a Detroit Tiger box around that has the Tiger D in it. And the logo I used was already in use in the article -- at higher resolution than what I used it for. I took the same exact image file and shrank it to fit. Between the two, how was my version in violation? -Will Pittenger 02:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The logo in the article is okay because it depicts the logo of the team the article is about, that is why we are allowed to legally use it under fair use since it is a copyrighted image. We can't legally use it elsewhere such as in userboxes or templates. --Holderca1 03:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely...Fair use items are not permitted in userboxes. But a suggestion, usually userboxes say this user rather than this person. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadog.M.S (talk • contribs)

My apologies if someone mistook me for a lawyer. I don't always understand this legal stuff. In this case, I did not understand until after I went to bed last night. I have updated the above version the copy on my page. (Note the text fits on one line now.)

Also, could someone explain why the D logo is legal in {{User:Benwildeboer/UBX/User Tigers fan}}? Is that template in fact illegal? It clearly uses a GIF taken from somewhere.

Finally, are images used from remote sites legal? -Will Pittenger 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That logo looks different the Detroit's logo, and the page says that a user created it. I don't understand what you mean by images from remote sites. --Holderca1 11:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is already a userbox for this, {{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/MLB-Cardinals}}

STL	This user is a fan of the St. Louis Cardinals

--Holderca1 11:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided to adopt that box per WP:UM. It now has instructions on my page for it. -Will Pittenger 06:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Uniforms

The hat on the road uniform is wrong. The black hat is the "Sunday Cap" and is eorn only on sunday. On the road the Cards where a navy blue hat with a red bill and the birds on the bat logo. Can someone fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saksjn (talk • contribs) 13:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

That's incorrect. The road cap is navy blue with the StL logo. The Sunday cap is navy blue with red brim and the single bird on bat logo and is only worn at home on Sundays. Phyrkrakr (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Edit: Also moved this back to a separate section, as it was mixed in w/ the userbox discussion above. Phyrkrakr (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

2006 Championship Season

Shortened this section. The Cardinals have been around since 1882 and have won the World Series ten times. The '06 section was taking up too much of the article. Vidor 21:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Further shortened all the material from the 2000s decade. Article needs to have better balance between different eras. Vidor 11:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Shortened or taken out completely? There's NO mention of the 2006 championship until the 2007 section where they are referenced as defending their World Series title. That's way too skimpy. Especially when the last time they had the title was in 1982.220.148.120.214 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - We need to bring back *some* mention of 2006. The article goes from mentioning 2005, to how in 2007, the Cards started defending their WS championship. Makes no sense now. Let's put some of it back. I'm for balance, but having nothing there isn't right either. --Umrguy42 16:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I added in a description of the 2006 season after noticing it missing, but it should probably just revert to an edited version of what was there before. Pertinent info to me: Lots of injuries, Pujols' great April/May, team's almost historic collapse down the stretch, then playoffs. Phyrkrakr (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Albert Pujols is now a United States citizen...flag change?

Recently (February 2007 IIRC) Albert Pujols took the oath and thus became a United States citizen. I noticed today that in the roster names/flags section, the flag of his birth country (Dominican Republic) is used. This prompts several questions. (1) Are these flags intended to show country of birth, country of first citizenship, country of most recent citizenship, or what exactly? (Poked around a bit and did not find an answer for this one.) (2) In the case of dual citizenship, which flag does Wikipedia use? -- I imagine that there are at least some instances of dual citizenship amongst current major league players. No idea whether Pujols holds dual citizenship. (3) Maybe the player should be offered the opportunity to choose between flags (in Wikipedia), in the case of dual citizenship? (4) Is there any precedent in Wikipedia for honoring the preference of someone who is a subject of a Wikipedia article? Has this question even been raised/discussed?

Apologies if this is not the perfect place to ask these questions. Would welcome suggestions about other places to ask. Publius3 01:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Was just noticing this myself, and also was wondering what the protocol should be. Should the flags indicate citizenship or country of birth? A strong case can be made for either. Tysalpha 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tyler Johnson's number

Tyler Johnson's number on the roster should be 61.69.153.172.250 01:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Number changed to 19 in May 2007 (for his birthday, iirc) Phyrkrakr (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Josh Hancock section

Three paragraphs to cover this event is a clear case of "recentitis" and has undue weight for the rest of the article. As a Cards fan, my heart was broken over this tragic lost but there needs to be some prospective here. The Josh Hancock article has all the pertinent information as well as 2007 St. Louis Cardinals season article. I think Hancock's death should be treated in this article the same was as Darryl Kile's with just a one line mention and wiki link to the main article. I'm going to edit the article accordingly. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cards nickname

If a source is needs one only needs to look at the Cardinal's official website to see that the phrase "Cards" is how the own team frequently refers to themselves. If we need to add a source citation, is it going to mess up the infobox code? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing Style

The whole article is full of informal slang, jargon, and other colloquialisms that really aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. I realize that this is how baseball aficionados talk about the sport, but Wikipedia needs to be written with a general audience in mind. There is also lots of obviously biased language that violates NPOV. Much of the article could use cleanup.

Spin2cool 22:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of racism

The alleged planned boycott against Jackie Robinson is vigorously denied by the interviewees in "The Spirit of St. Louis: A History Of The St. Louis Cardinals And Browns" by Peter Golenbock. I am noting this very briefly. As a baseball team in a former slave state, and having the reputation of being full of hillbillies (see: Dizzy Dean, Enos "Country" Slaughter, etc.), it was going to be easy for people to convince themselves that the Cards would react badly to Jackie Robinson whether or not there was any further evidence of such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for the alleged boycott? The only source I see cited in that part is the interview refuting it. Phyrkrakr (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some question how serious the threat of a boycott was. Supposedly Ford Frick sent a letter to all the clubs threatening them with severe retribution if they boycotted. SABR had an article about it a few years ago. I'll look into it when I get the chance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Albert Pujols

Albert Pujols was born in and played for the Dominican Republic national team. Seeing as how the Dominican constitution allows for double citizenship, the flag next to his name should be that of the Dominican Republic. DannyVC 03:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Shortened history section

I've been working on a shorter history section for the Cardinals article based on other sports team articles that have reached FA status, such as Chicago Bears and New England Patriots. Because it will be a very drastic edit to the article, I want to let everyone know so they can review it first. Here: User:Timpcrk87/sandbox/Cardinals Leave comments either here on on that pages discussion page. Timpcrk87 (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just today, another editor was working on cutting down the size a bit. You might want to take it up with him before you go chopping further. Also, do you plan to then write the spinoff article for the full history? (Maybe there already is one?) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Yes, there is one. Just be sure to keep the two articles consistent with each other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend shifting the info you're cutting into the "History of the St. Louis Cardinals" article before you cut it. Vidor (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I've only seen positive responses (also see here), I'm going ahead with the edit. I made sure everything from the previous version was at least preserved in the History of the St. Louis Cardinals article. Also, I'm going to temporarily keep the version I'm removing here, as much for myself as anything. Timpcrk87 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Retired numbers?

Seems to me that the Cardinals have retired more numbers than the Astros. Should the latest change be reverted? Enigma ^message 05:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

They're both 10 (actually 9 plus Jackie Robinson). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you include Gussie Busch, it's 10 plus Jackie Robinson. Enigma ^message 15:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Busch was not a player and did not have a number to be retired. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I know he was an owner, but the article still lists it as a number. That was just ceremonial, I guess? Enigma ^message 03:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I had apparently miscounted. It's apparently 12 rather than 10. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick and dirty count says 10 numbers retired by the team, counting the one for Gussie Busch (they retired the number for him, even if he didn't play), AND the team retiring 42 (again) for Bruce Sutter. (The other two slots of course are 42 retired for Jackie Robinson, and the listing of Rogers Hornsby, who I'm guessing had no number.) umrguy42 16:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, I took that into account. If you don't count Jackie Robinson, whose number was retired by baseball, the Astros have 9. I'm removing them. Enigma ^message 16:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the idea to have them tied would be if you count #42 as being retired, and saying that Sutter doesn't count because 42 was already retired, so both teams technically have 10 numbers overall retired. However, not all of those were retired by the team itself. It's iffy. Enigma ^message 16:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Per this, Sutter's #42 is the only one that officially counts toward the retired number count. Jackie Robinson's #42 is a default for all MLB teams, even the Tampa Bay Rays and Arizona Diamondbacks, who have not been in existence long enough to have any numbers retired via their own franchise history. --Winger84 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

10,000 wins

The Cardinals don't recognize their W/L record with the American Association, so they are in the neighborhood of 9,200 wins, not 10,000 wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slyder Pilot (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for that, either way? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, their year-by-year history [6] includes the 1882-1891 club. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

American Association should be listed

The team's years in the American Association (1882 - 1891) ought to be listed under Major League Affiliations in the Team Information box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.12.22 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Caption vandalism?

"Busch Stadium has been the Cardinals home since 2006, and was created by Nick Heard" Who is Nick Heard? This has to be vandalism. POKETNRJSH (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism stemming from Cardinalheard15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has now been blocked indefinitely. I will fix the article. Enigma^msg 08:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It was nice of him to tell us his first name, though, wasn't it? Next time he goes to Busch, maybe someone could arrange for this on the message board: "Nick Heard - Congratulations on being blocked on Wikipedia!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Cardinals have never retired No. 23; it is currently worn by third baseman David Freese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.125.117 (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up. umrguy42 14:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistency

If the Cards are listed as NL Central co-champions for 2001, why aren't the 2005 Red Sox and 2006 Dodgers also listed as division co-champs on their articles? Wikipedia should be consistent.76.126.138.82 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's Major League Baseball's fault. This marked the first time ever a team had tied for both the best, and second best teams in the league. It was also the first time those very teams ended the regular season playing each other! The commissioner's office made the statement before the final regular season game that the Astros and Cardinals would NOT play a tie-breaker, because it wasn't needed, since they both had the best record in the NL, one would obviously be the Wild Card and the other the first place seed. Had the Cardinals won 2 out of the 4 instead of the 1 out of the 4, they would have finished 2 games ahead of Houston, instead of tied, and the head-to-head would have been tied, but meaningless. Since that was the case, because the teams can NOT play each other in the first round, it was decided that since the Astros won the final series against the Cardinals, giving them the season edge, they would be the top team, while the Cardinals would be the Wild Card. This was the first time the Wild Card/Division winner/League winner was a tie. This being the case, the Cardinals petitioned the commissioner's office to call themselves "Co-Champions", which was granted, as they did win the Central, technically. This is why it's on their website, which IS a branch of the MLB's website. The 2005 Sox and 2006 Dodgers either didn't petition the commissioner's office, or if they did, it wasn't granted. I hope this clears up why they call themselves Co-Champions while others don't. It is confusing, and the only reason I know about this is because I'm from St Louis, and heard all this as it was being reported back in 2001. I'm not sure if any of this made the papers or not, as I heard all this on television news, when they had the task of trying to explain the "Co-Champions" statement on Busch Stadium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.33.178 (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Comeback

Okay, there is some confusion being spread around in the media. The largest comeback after 130 games is the St Louis Cardinals, being 10.5 games. However, it's not the largest September comeback, as they made up 2 games before the month began. The Rays have the largest comeback in the final month of the season at 9 games, to St Louis' 8.5, and because of the confusion, I just clarified the description in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.33.178 (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, Rypcord? You say the MLB, and FOX Sports are biased toward the Cardinals? I added ESPN who also agree about the comeback after game 130, and what, now you're going to say ESPN is also biased toward the Cardinals? Where are you from, Atlanta? Fact is, NO TEAM overcame a 10.5 deficit after the 130 games played mark, before St Louis did in 2011. It wasn't the greatest over the final month, as Tampa Bay started 9 games out on September 1, compared to St Louis' 8.5 games back, but it was the largest after game 130. I don't see the point you make that all the articles are biased, because MLB, FOX Sports, and ESPN are ALL NEUTRAL sources!!--75.0.34.153 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)--75.0.34.87 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Co-Championship

Since this is being brought back up 5 years later, probably by some irate Phillies (just lost the NLDS to them) or Braves (lost 10.5 game lead to them for the Wild Card) fan, here's how the discussion went in 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_League_Central — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.34.217 (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no "co-championship" in 2001. Houston was declared the champion, and St. Louis the wild-card qualifier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

AP in 2004 wrote "St. Louis tried to claim it was division co-champion, a position the commissioner's office rejected." Indications are that it's the Cardinals self-proclaiming themselves co-champs. MLB.com in 2004 wrote, "Besides, the Cardinals call themselves co-champions of the NL Central for the 2001 campaign, a season that ended in just such a tiebreak fashion." MLB.com in 2011 wrote, "It's the Cardinals' second time as the Wild Card, following a 2001 tie with the Astros. Houston was designated the NL Central champion based on head-to-head record, while the Cardinals were designated the Wild Card, though the organization considers that year a co-championship." Note they said "the organization" and not "MLB" considers them co-champs. I'd be more convinced if there are sources where MLB officially calls them co-champs. Otherwise, co- usually implies equal, but if one is seeded higher than the other, it would not be equal and co- ceases to make sense. I know I've seen in college football where teams finish with the same record, but one team goes to the top bowl based on a tie-breaker, but the conference still considers them co-champs. But they have official announcements or press releases referring to them as co-champs. Here, I only see sources saying the Cardinals call themselves co-champs. stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com says they shared the championship, but that is the Cardinals website. Note MLB.com is a separate entity from MLB, so just because its on MLB.com doesn't mean MLB approves it. The HOF source is interesting, but its a deadlink so I cant see it.—Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Hall of Fame is a private organization, so if it says anything about it, it's merely a matter of opinion. I checked the 2002 Baseball Guide and nothing was said about "co-champions". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle say both teams claim they heard different stories from MLB, so that lead nowhere. It then says "According to official MLB record books, including the standings listed in the Cardinals' 2002 media guide, the Astros are listed as Central Division champions. Outright." But then Katy Feeney, MLB's vice president for scheduling and club relations, says "Yes, the Astros in that sense are the champions," Feeney said. "And the Cardinals . . . well, you could technically say they are both champions. It's really a placement in postseason. They're sort of co-winners." Leave it to MLB to be decisive.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Usually there's a trophy of some kind for winning a division. If someone can determine who was awarded trophies in 2001, that should settle it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

SI.com excerpts from MLB rules to me sound clear that Houston is the champion. But I guess STL marketing team and then Feeney's non-committal statement is distinguishing between "Division Champion" in standings vs "Division Champion" in seedings. FWIW, baseball-reference.com says STL finished "2nd of 6" teams in 2001.—Bagumba (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Got access to HOF page through archive.org "The Cardinals and Astros were declared co-champions of the NL Central in 2001, based on their identical regular season record. Due to the fact that the Astros edged the Cardinals in head-to-head games, 9-7, they were seeded as the division winner in the post-season, and the Cardinals were seeded as the wild-card." I agree with Bugs, this is a private organization, and should be treated with equal weight as any other source. Cardinals are not an independent source, so I would not give them any weight.—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: An invitation to join this discussion was left at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: An invitation to join this discussion was left at Talk:Houston Astros—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a comment back in 2005: "For all practical purposes the Hall of Fame is considered the official keeper of baseball records." Their current Ozzie Smith profile refers to baseball-reference.com, so doesnt look like they are currently officially maintaining stats, nor do I think they ever did. Wasnt it MLBs decision to put asterisk on Maris and not the HOF?—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Brewers were NL Central champions and Cardinals were the NL wild card team due to tiebreakers. There are no "co-champions". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No co-champs MLB.com 2001 standings show Hoston "clinched division" and St. Louis "clinched wild card". This online source, and Baseball Bugs' offline source of "2002 Baseball Guide" is enough to cinch it for me. They are not officially co-champions, should not be counted in infobox, and should not be co-listed at National League Central or Major League Baseball division winners (any others?), but a footnote can stay to say the Cardinals contest it.—Bagumba (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Also, the Hall of Fame is not, nor has it ever been, the keeper of the stats. That's the job of the Elias Sports Bureau. Their book (again, an offline source) also has Houston as the division champion and St. Louis as the wild card qualifier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, because if either Baseball Bugs or Bagumba would do their homework, instead of relying on others by just googling it, they both would see this was the first finish tie EVER! Before when it was just one or two divisions, a tie meant a 1-game playoff, but since the addition of the Wild Card, if one ties for BOTH division and wild card, the commissioner's office who has the final say used head-to-head. If that was tied they had something I forget, but it was said during the final regular season series of the 2001 season when the Cards and Astros played each other in a 4 game series (Houston won 3 of 4 to tie the record) that whoever won that series would be seeded as the top team the other wild card. If either of you bother to google roughly October 2001 Astros at Cardinals and commissioner's office you'd see that they don't call the final series champions, since one would be the wild card no matter what. Is this really the future that you Gen Y kids do nothing but Google everything? Oh, I fear for the future!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.34.88 (talk • contribs)

I kindly ask editors to be civil and assume good faith based on sources participants have found for discussion. It is the burden of an editor wishing to have text included in an article to present verifiable information to be discussed to reach a consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Who doesn't love the Queen song, "we are the co-champions!" The point is, a co-champion is not a champion. So you might add a section on co-championships, but this year does not belong in the champion column. 0¹⁸ (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes Co-Champs [7] Cardinals website (part of mlb.com) under 2001: "The Cardinals finished 93-69 and co-owners of the first shared championship in major-league history..." If MLB had a problem with this, they would not allow the Cardinals to have that a part of their history, nor have signage inside Busch Stadium that shows 2001 being a division championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.75.190 (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Do the Cardinals display a trophy for that 2001 season? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Its on a subsite, stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com, which most would agree is run by St Louis independent of MLB. BTW, MLB wants Frank McCourt to sell the Dodgers also, so not everyone listens to the bg boss.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously Baseball Bugs? Do you even follow MLB at all? The MLB does NOT give trophies for Divisional Championships. The Braves do NOT have 14 trophies on display, they DO have pennants, and that's what a TEAM displays, NOT MLB! If you would bother to do some homework, you'd see there are only TWO trophies awarded a year for a team. One is the LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP, the other is the WORLD SERIES. Go back to school kid, and do some learning about baseball, BEFORE you try to claim to fix it. By the way, Cooperstown (Hall of Fame, I'm telling you what it is, since you don't do your homework) IS the official recorder of statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.34.88 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I only started watching baseball last week, so I'm kinda ignorant. Are you saying that there is actually no such thing as a division championship? P.S. As noted on their website,[8] the Elias Sports Bureau is the official statistician of major league baseball. Feel free to post some evidence that the Hall of Fame is "the official recorder of statistics", as I would like to see such evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There is such a thing as a division championship. But there is no trophy to commemorate a division championship. -Anonymous user, 04:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.50.7 (talk)

That's unfortunate. In any case, the Cardinals weren't the division champion, they were the wild card qualifier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

wrong link in one of MVP references

I would've fixed it myself, but the subject is locked. in the section 2000-2009, Pujols MVP link links to the General disambiguation about MVP. should instead link to the MLB MVP as is in previous links. Drorzm (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Cards-Astros rivalry in lede

Should this still be mentioned? I mean, it was good for a couple years, but I'm not sure it's really an on-going, current "thing" - it went while both were good, it's faded. It'd be like talking about a recent Cards-Reds rivalry due to the bad blood from last year while both were competing for the division crown... umrguy42 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Or, the more current Cards-Brewers rivalry. Need I remind you of Nyger Morgan's comments? "Alberta" Pujols, and Carpenter is a "Phony".--75.0.35.23 (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yankees WS titles

Do other people think we need the actual number of titles the Yanks hold in the lead paragraph? It just seems like one more thing we'd have to keep updated. (Not that it's a constant issue, but...). umrguy42 14:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It tells the readers immediately how big a difference there is between the Yankees and the Cardinals, who are in some sense "The Yankees of the National League". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the significance in a Saint Louis Cardinals article (in contradistinction to, say, a New York Yankees article) of "how big a difference there is between the Yankees and the Cardinals"? If you mean it gives readers perspective, wouldn't it make just as much sense to list the team in third place? Ah, but here's where we run into trouble: According to Wikipedia, the Oakland Athletics have won the third most World Series at nine, yet they've won only four as an Oakland team. According to Wikipedia, the Cardinals are tied with the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Francisco Giants in playing in the third most World Series at eighteen each, yet the Los Angeles Dodgers have played in only five as a Los Angeles team and the San Francisco Giants have played in only four as a San Francisco team. Logically, third place in both categories should go to the Boston Red Sox at eleven World Series entered and seven won. (The Cardinals are not merely "in some sense 'The Yankees of the National League' "; they're the second best team in baseball--and the Red Sox are the third best). TheScotch (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, because the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers don't exist anymore, so why is a combined total the same as a team that's always been in St Louis or boston? Plus, the fact that only two teams even have double digits in championships won, with the Yaankeys being the other one, with their gigantic lead. Plus New York buys their championships given they always have hte highest or second highest paryoll every year!--75.0.35.23 (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick results on those tests

Here's an interesting tidbit in the History section, at the very end:

"Afterwards, 7 of the players were tested positive for steroids and the Central title was refuted."

Usually, I'd point out that "afterwards" isn't really a word and that you should write out the "7" as "seven," but mainly I think it's vandalism.

Barlitone (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely vandalism. Revert on sight, unless such a thing comes with a gold-plated and copper-bottomed source attached - that kind of vandalism in particular runs into WP:BLP, to my understanding. umrguy42 22:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I heard about some kind of tests that were positive for some of the players in the past, but I don't know if it wsa just rumor or not. This whole sterroid generation has really ruined baseballs traditional past. I'm sure they did have some juiced players as McGwire did admit to using them to Bob Costas, and said LaRussa had to be the hardest person for him to tell, because he played under him for so long. Point is, they did have some juicers as the law of stastictics said.--75.0.35.23 (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

18 pennants ties?

I saw that the 18 NL championships they won supposedly ties the Dodgers and Giants, but it has that the Giants went to 20 world series, so doesn't that mean that the Giants won 2 more than St Louis?--75.0.35.23 (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)--75.0.35.23 (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh I got that backwards. It has that the 18 pennants ties the Giants, but the Giants have that they won 21 pennants, which would be 3 more than St Louis? I'm a little confused on this pennant thing. Is it a ties with teh Dodgers and Giants, or what?--75.0.35.23 (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Cardinals have 18 National League championships ("pennants"), the Giants have 21. The Giants first 3 did not involve the modern World Series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Stan Musial

As a living baseball fan 58 years of age do not contend that Stan "the man" Musial retired before 1964. I know he was in that World Series against the Yankees and I know he was still playing baseball in 1967 when the Cardinals beat the Boston Red Sox. He was one of the greatest hitters and outfielders ever. His career did not end in 1963. He was not replaced by Lou Brock either because Brock played left field while Musial played right. Flood played center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HomerJones65 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As noted on MLB.COM,[9] The Man's last year as a player was 1963. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Right field in 1967 was Roger Maris. I didn't look this up, I'm remembering it from 1967--with the help of mnemonic device: R for right and Roger, L for left and Lou, C for center and Curt, as in Curt Flood. TheScotch (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I've poked around: According to Wikipedia, "Musial served as the Cardinals' general manager in 1967, winning the pennant and World Series and then quitting that position." This may be the source of the confusion. TheScotch (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no question Musial's last professional baseball season as a player was 1963. He was retired and not playing on the 1964 championship team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.32.68 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It did make the 1963 season more interesting though. Musial had announced his intentions to retire, and then the Cardinals put on a winning streak in September and almost caught the Dodgers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight and recentism in 2011 summary

The extensive recap of the 2011 postseason in the main article constitutes undue weight and recentism. The recap will need to be moved to the 2011 St. Louis Cardinals season and a brief summary will be here. Can an experienced editor who regularly edits Cardinals articles work on integrating everything to the correct articles? I would, but I don't want to risk messing anything up. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)--75.0.32.63 (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)--75.0.32.63 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! It has gotten REALLY long. I've tried to summarize everything, and will see what I can do for the post season paragraphs.

Well, I cleaned it up as much as I could. It's a LOT less wordy now.

Problem is unlike 2006 which had Cardinal memorable moments, none of them were historic in the mlb, ie NLCS game 7's strikeout of Beltran won't be recorded in mlb history like Pujols' 3 home runs in game 3 will. For instance, his bat from game 3 as well as the jersey and bat of Freese in game 6 are now in the hall of fame. These are hitorical moments, and it's hard to cut them out, because it is historical in mlb's history, not just St Louis' history. Game 5 can be cut since it's not going down in the hall of fame, but that will only take less than one full line away.--75.0.34.149 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

See, all these notes in 2011 were hitoric. The first being game 5 of the NLDS as the first NL series to end in a 1-0 score; in game 3 of the world series Pujols ties Babe Ruth and Reggie Jackson (Mr October) with 3 home runs, and in game 6 they were the first team to be one strike away from elimination in two separate innings and come back, as well as the first to score in the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th innings. Game 5 is probably the only one on the chopping block. The "phone-gate" thing may or may not be historic, but the others were unprecedented (they were the first time EVER to have occurred). The regular season run was also historic as no team came back from such a large margin with so few games left. The Rays came back from a 0.5 larger deficit, but had more games remaining to do so. Plus, they did it over a team in their own division. The remaining items listed in this section were all historic, so I don't see how anyone can claim recentism, or undue weight anymore, especially when mlb and espn are the neutral sources used.--75.0.34.149 (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) Yeah, there's probably some undue weight. Give it a chance, it'll settle down and be trimmed appropriately over the next few months (there's the whole Pujols Free Agency situation that'll have to be rolled in anyway). Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. umrguy42 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you people not reading this article. First, it has been trimmed to ONLY the historical events. NOT just St Louis history, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL history. Events that are permanently recorded in the Hall of Fame. The regular season is the FRIST TIME EVER a team came back from a large deficit so late in the season (10.5 games with only 32 to play), and did it over a team not in their own division! The second was the NLDS ending 1-0, being the FIRST TIME EVER a National League playoff series (NLDS or NLCS) ended with a 1-0 score. The NLCS marks their 18th pennant which ties them with the Dodgers and Giants for the MOST in the National League. Now, the world series had 2 games that are VERY historic. Game 3 Albert ties Reggie Jackson (Mr October) and Babe Ruth (the BABE) as the ONLY players to hit 3 home runs in a single world series game, and game 6 marks the FIRST TIME EVER in a world series game a team was down in the 9th and extras who were also one strike away from elimination to come back, as well as the FIRST TEAM EVER to score runs from the 8th through the 11th innings of the same game! That was so historic the Hall of Fame put items from those games in it, as reported by ESPN. Now, if those historic events are undue weight, as being reported by MLB and ESPN, then I'd like to know how!!!--75.0.34.188 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

#42 Vandalism?

Looks like we have vandalism with #42. Though it was retired for HOF Pitcher Bruce Sutter by the St. Louis Cardinals in 2006, it was originally retired for Jackie Robinson in all of MLB in 1997, making the Cardinals unique in the fact their reitred #42 is shared by two HOF players JB2K (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if it was vandalism (not sure where that edit happened), more likely a good-faith attempt at "cleanup"; however, I have restored the missing information. umrguy42 18:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Defending champs

Is there a reason the opening of the article doesn't mention that the Cardinals are the defending World Series champions? This has been done in the past for pretty much every team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barlitone (talk • contribs) 07:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Barlitone (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

... OK, I just checked, and the NHL and NFL champs all include, in the opening of the article, the fact that the team is the "reigning champion" or something of that sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barlitone (talk • contribs) 07:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Barlitone (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

2001 season

Okay, this has been debated, and debated, and DEBATED. Let's see what MLB says about it. They don't list St Louis as solo Wild Card, they're listed as "Division Leader" as well as "Eliminated". Odd, but they are basically listed as "Co-Champions" of the Central Division. Here's a link: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/standings/wildcard.jsp?ymd=20011007#20011007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.34.102 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That chart says just the opposite of what you appear to be saying. It says the Astros won the division and the Cardinals were the wild card qualifier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent information

Is the openining day lineups from 2004 to 2012 really needed in the article? That seems really weird. Also, the Opening Day salaries goes only from 2000 to 2011 and the Annual financial records go only from 2009 to 2012. This all seems to fall into WP:RECENTISM. Penale52 (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

#10 image is missing in retired numbers

Is there an image for LaRussa in the retired numbers section? Right now, it's missing. If someone knows where it is or can make it, that would be great. InTheAM 12:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Heavily-favored?

In the subcategory 2006, the Detroit Tigers are referred as having been 'heavily-favored' in the World Series. While I agree with said statement, it it just an opinion without citations being used (and the one used in the article does not support the statement). AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it suffice to link to contemporary sportswriters' predictions? How many? I would think USA Today's famous "The Tigers in three (OK, make it four)" would suffice. Nothing says "heavily favored" quite like a sportswriter in a national publication suggesting that one team will win a best-of-seven series in only three games. Barlitone (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Page Lock

--75.0.34.217 (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Some MLB fans can be jerks online, is there a way to lock all the teams playing in the LCS at the current time, then unlock them about a week or so after the end of the World Series?

Lock them from IPs or everyone? In any event, see Wikipedia:Protection policy.—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Lock them from people like you who do nothing but throw their weight around, ASSuMeING that they know something they DON'T!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.34.88 (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that the IP is from Collinsville, IL, a Cardinals hotbed. Surprise, surprise. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and no. There are quite a few Cubs fans here as well, as I too am from Collinsville, but I am a CUBS fan. I am also a BASEBALL fan however, so I have knowledge on other teams besides the Cubs. I also noticed this became locked after the world series, surprise, surprise. It is also a surprise that no one has noted that St Louis does have a little (and I mean LITTLE) certificate about the 2001 co-champions that is signed by Selig on display in their own hall of fame. The signature looks like it was stamped, and the thing is dated in 2002, so my guess is that it was first denied, then accepted. Who knows, I'll have to go there again sometime and ask the person leading the tour about it.--75.0.34.84 (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey you fellow Collinsville native, CUBS SUCK! GO CARDS! Just kidding! It is true though that there are quite a few Cubs fans down here, as well as Cards fans. I'm a Cards fan while my roommate is a CUBS fan. Yes, when the Cubs come down here and when the Cards go up there we ALWAYS have a rivalry bet (it's friendly though, with small wagers like doing the others laundry, the dishes, etc). Point is, yes there are quite a few Cubs fans living umong us Cards fans, ans at least we don't have to wait 100+ years to get a World Championship! Speaking of that certificate you mention, I don't remember seeing one on display in the hall of fame there at busch stadium. I'll have to check for it next time I go to a 2011 WORLD CHAMPION CARDINALS game.--75.0.35.23 (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There are hardly any Cubs fans in Collinsville. Certainly, there is no higher a percentage of Cubs fans in Collinsville than there is Cardinals fans in Chicago. Are we going to start talking about all the Cardinals fans in Chicago? It's a little silly. 99% of people in Collinsville who care about Baseball are Cardinals fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.217.195 (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How Good the Cardinals

The cardinals think they are so good but sense they lost there best player so they will probaly never win another world series. The braves will beat them all the time in there divison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkey22 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be edited at this point? The idea that the Braves would beat the Cardinals has recently become outdated. Barlitone (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Cubs?

"The Cubs were founded as the St. Louis Brown Stockings in 1880 as a member of the now-defunct American Association" I assume someone attempted to be funny? 613BPS (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That would appear to be vandalism. I fixed it. In the future, feel free to make the change yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Cardinals Hall of Famers Info Box

Is there a reason why the info box under the "Players" section is broken into St. Louis Browns and St. Louis Cardinals players? It lists George Sisler, who never played for the Cardinals. He played for the Americal League Browns that became the Orioles. Other than playing in the same city as the Cardinals, he has no connection to this article. The others listed played for the National League Browns, but that is really the same franchise as the current Cardinals. It seems like it would make more sense to put them in the same list as the other Cardinals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.184.20 (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The AL Browns players are listed because the Cardinals organization itself chose to honor them. Simple as that. Ambaryer (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 Uniforms

I see no new graphics have been developed for the 2013 uniforms -- the Cardinals have changed their road hats to red, and they have adopted a new cream-colored alternate uniform for certain home games.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB2K (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Silent Wind of Doom completed this request. ˜˜˜˜Elcid.ruderico, April 15, 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Retired numbers color pattern

I noticed Fma12 modified the larger frame color on the retired numbers section from green to grey, which is a step in the right direction, because the lighter green was too busy. Now I have a gripe about the darker (forest?) green. Correct me if I am wrong, but what is green doing there when the Cardinals' primary colors are cardinal red and navy? I don't know how to modify colors right now (I'm sure I could figure it out without much trouble), but would someone who is apt correct the forest green? ˜˜˜˜Elcid.ruderico, 18 April 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcid.ruderico (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one who originally placed them on the background, but I have a hunch it might have bee to emulate the way the numbers look at Busch Stadium. The outfield wall, where the numbers are located, is pretty close to that shade of dark green. To insist that the background has to be one of the Cardinals primary team colors seems a bit of an overreach to me. I'd vote to keep the background as it is. The red numbers really do seem to 'pop' quite well off of it. Sector001 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough to me. What's funny is, I forgot what you said with regard to the color of the fences at Busch Stadium was actually my very first impression. Amazing what amount of data the mind processes and even more that we forget.Elcid.ruderico (talk), 19 April 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 07:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Birds

A Philadelphia fan has taken it upon himself or herself to rename the team the "Rotten Birds." I went ahead and fixed it, but if it happens again, the page might have to be locked. It's also possible that by now, the Philly fan has thrown a whole package of D-cell batteries through his or her monitor, so it may not be a problem going forward. Barlitone (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

St. Louis Cardinals History

Frederick Michael Saigh Jr. (pronounced "sigh") (1905 – 1999) was the part-owner, then sole owner, of the St. Louis Cardinals of American Major League Baseball (MLB) from 1948 through 1953. Why no reference to Mr. Saigh in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.206.230 (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Can this be substantiated by a valid, neutral reference? If so then be bold and add it to the article yourself. Have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct, numerous valid references document Mr. Saigh as a previous owner of the Cardinals. Although Mr. Saigh is not mentioned in this article, he is mentioned in the list of St. Louis Cardinals owners and executives and in history of the St. Louis Cardinals (1920–52). The history section of the main Cardinals article was at one time quite lengthy so I split it into four primary historic sections with a separate article for each. Not every owner is in the main article history section only because their contributions may not have merited individual mention there, just like not every manager is mentioned in the respective section of the main Cardinals article.

According to what I have researched, the time during Mr. Saigh's tenure was characterized as positive and generous, willingly giving the players raises on multiple occasions. However, his most significant contribution seemed to come when he sold the team: after being forced out as owner following tax evasion charges, he sold the team to a local bidder rather than the highest, Anheuser-Busch, to ensure the Cardinals remained in St. Louis. If I missed a landmark event that should be mentioned in the main article, then, please, place it there. If there are details that may not have had significant consequence to the direction of the franchise, then it would be better in the separate historic section, i.e., in this case, 1920-53, in that individual season (since every Cardinals season has its own WP page), and/or have a separate article (i.e., Brock for Broglio). If there is a consensus that sees it differently or a WP standard/manual which I am missing, then let's discuss. Otherwise, it becomes a deluge of information that becomes too difficult to follow and manage. Hope that helps and makes sense. - Elcid.ruderico (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

Revamping the History Section

With the history section taking on a life of its own, I would like to propose a series of acts/changes be done to give a briefer, but meaningful abstract of the Cardinals' history in the main SLC page while preserving much of the information in the history section, because it is relevant indeed:

• Move the bulk of the history off the primary SLC page by summarizing it to around one dozen paragraphs, transfer the intricacies to, and merge with the information already on, the History of the St. Louis Cardinals page, and split that page into five separate articles:

•History of the St. Louis Cardinals (1875-1891)

•History of the St. Louis Cardinals (1892-1919)

•History of the St. Louis Cardinals (1920-1952)

•History of the St. Louis Cardinals (1953-1989)

•History of the St. Louis Cardinals (1990-Present)

There really seems to be quite a bit of relevant history of the franchise to justify this adjustment. Each section could be given a two to three paragraph subtopic in the main SLC article, with the link to each separate article to give the reader quicker access. Is anyone else in favor of getting these pages created (If so, I would not mind doing it unilaterally)? In addition, if there is enough favor, would anyone else be up for helping out in the process of building these pages? Of course, I will take charge in getting this development off the ground.

I also propose to incorporate the several years before 1882 as part of the history on the grounds that evidence supports that the Cardinals' franchise (AKA then as the St. Louis Brown Stockings) loosely functioned as a pro and semi-pro team in the years 1875-1881, although this period does not seem to be recognized as official seasons of play in the franchise's history by the franchise or MLB. I'm not certain on what grounds this era is unrecognized, whether it is due to lack of continuity in a Major League, or whether they lost their professional distinction following the 1877 expulsion, or for some other (or multiple) reason(s); regardless, I am not looking to alter their status. Even with the obscurity, it seems fitting to mention these origins. ˜˜˜˜Elcid.ruderico, 25 March 2013

Addressing the recency issue with the 2011 season and others

To address the 2011 season in the history topic of the main SLC article, the following four-sentence summary could be dispensed that preserves the gravity of the SLC's late regular-season and postseason achievement:

An unusual and dramatic scenario unfolded for the Cardinals late in the 2011 season. First, they completed the largest games-won deficit after 130 games (at 10.5) to earn a playoff berth. Second, after making their way to their way to the World Series, the Cardinals again found themselves in moments never before seen, as they came back from their final strike - twice - to defeat the Texas Rangers. This was in addition to a three home-run game from Albert Pujols earlier in the Series.

It seems as if that is the appropriate means to summarize without skimming off the main reason as to why the 2011 season was historic for both MLB and the Cardinals. Anyhow, because of the persistent alterations of that section, some kind of consensus should be reached, that leaves that section unaltered. ˜˜˜˜Elcid.ruderico, 25 March 2013

How far away is the article from being nominated as a good article?

Or even as a featured article? It seems as if enough might be here, but could use a good bit of summarizing (not just history) and briefly covering related topics, such as the proposed elements to comprise Ballpark Village at Busch Stadium, which is not mentioned, but is looked to as an important representation of the Cardinals experience. ˜˜˜˜Elcid.ruderico, 25 March 2013

This Post shows up when googling St. Louis Cardinals

St. Louis Cardinals 111,290 followers on Google+ 2 circles The St. Louis Cardinals, a gay butt sex team based in St. Louis, Missouri, compete in the National League Central Division of Major League Baseball. Biggest gay butt sex fan, Todd Johnson, really can't get enough action. Busch Stadium has served as their home field since 2006. Wikipedia Arena/Stadium: Busch Stadium Manager: Mike Matheny Division: National League Central Mascot: Fredbird Location: St. Louis World Series championships: 1926, 1931, 1934, 1942, 1944, 1946, 1964, 1967, 1982, 2006, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.65.138 (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

NY Daily News. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not our best press, but... – Muboshgu (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Cardinals and Brown were two separate teams.

just wanted to get clarification on the statement that the Cardinals used to be the Browns. I believe this is in error. It is my understanding that they were two separate teams, with the Cardinals in the National League and the Browns in the American League. I am pretty certain that the Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Orioles sometime in the 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.246.210 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not an error. Ambaryer (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

See below for more on this topic. As for the move of the (AL) Browns from St. Louis to Baltimore (taking the nickname Orioles), that happened in the 1953-54 offseason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2013

This turned up in a photo caption:

"Charles Comiskey, circa 1910, guided the Browns to four American Association titles."

Please insert "shown here" just before "circa 1910", because we are referring to the date of the photo, not to when he guided the Browns to those 4 AA titles.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)