Talk:Bobby Richardson

Yankees dynasty

Anyone out there who cares to explain what does and doesn't belong here? Question: why is it out of place here to comment on Richardson's place in the Yankee dynasty, in some detail? I am not a Yankee fan; hated them in the days of Richardson, actually. I would never praise Richardson motivated by being his fan. But I have an attachment to answering the "so what?" question, and I think that is a fundamental reason why people read encyclopedias. Why did Richardson matter? in other words. You can't tell why he mattered by quoting his stats, not that much. You have to put him IN CONTEXT to tell his story. It is not controversial that he was a critical defensive player on the best baseball team of his era, or that countless times it was the Yankee infield defense that won the day. Nor is it controversial that he had the tendency to shine offensively, when it counted most, and tended to lift his team even when Mantle and Maris weren't lifting it by themselves. Richardson probably wasn't any better than some of the other star infielders of his day, like Maury Wills or Dick Groat or Bill Mazeroski. BUT HISTORY/CHANCE PUT HIM IN A PLACE WHERE HE HAD A GREATER EFFECT THAN THEY DID. By a mile. Why do a good number of you seem to think that saying so is "unencyclopedic?" Or that it might be okay to say that in the article on the Yankees, but not on Richardson?

Thanks in advance for any response. Moabalan.

Another version of the same question: I edited this article to say the defense Richardson, Kubek and Boyer contributed was critical to Yankee success (that part was left in). I said that it was one of about five factors making the Yanks better than the rest. There was a great offense, great pitching, both starters and relievers, and a great manager in Stengel. When you added the way those three infielders played defense, you got a World Series ring about every other year for the full span of Richardson's time with the team. Is there a controversial point in that? If not, why shouldn't an encyclopedia article talk about an individual's contribution to history?

My edit was removed with a note that such observations just might fit in the article on the Yankees, but not here. The implication was that it was either factually questionable or not pertinent to what encyclopedia readers want to read. Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, because we're so cautious? This is not original research. It was the common knowledge of well-informed baseball fans at the time.

Bill James wrote several essays and articles to debunk the myth that the Yaknees of the early 1960s were a great all-around team. Says he (and I tend to agree) the pitching was Whitey Ford and one-season guest stars, the bench was thin, and beyond lots and lots of home runs (admittedly a nice start), the offense wasn't all that noteworthy. Their lineup was usually five "cleanup" hitters and three glovemen. In retrospect, the very solid defensive infield was one of their real strengths. WHPratt (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Information verified

I removed the tag asking that information in this article be verified. I verified it all with baseball-reference.com, and made a few minor corrections; I believe that it is now completely accurate. I also added one paragraph and a couple of footnotes.Markjoseph125 03:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a mistake to say that Bobby Richardson was a poor offensive player. Other pitchers tried desperately to keep him off the bases because batting after him were Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Elston Howard, and other all-stars. Richardson came through time and time again in the clutch. He was to the Yankees of the late 50s and early 60s what Phil Rizzuto had been a decade and more earlier: their sparkplug. He was respected by his team-mates for his leadership qualities. He was particularly loved by Mickey Mantle because the Mick knew that, even though he had more pure talent, Richardson was the better man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.88.6 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was a Yankee fan and I liked Mantle and Berra and Maris and Ford and Howard etc., but Bobby was my favourite. Of course, much of his success depended on being a Yankee in that era. So he was fortunate. At least moderate skill, great attitude with flashes of brilliance...often just at the right time. Even if he had never done anything else, the catch to win the series is one of the great moments in baseball (for me at least). What is there not to like about Bobby Richardson ?? Zioguido (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is no mistake to say that he was a poor leadoff man. If the Pitchers were "trying desperately to keep him off base" they succeeded. In order to keep someone off base you have to give him a chance to hit and sometimes Richardson hit. Maybe this attempt to keep him off base is why his (and Kubek's) on base percentage was so low. Obviously, you want to keep such a great middle infielder in the lineup, because of his glove. But he should not have been in the top of the order. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217174959/http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=DI&Dato=20071027&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=1027005&Ref=PH&Profile=1006 to http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=DI&Dato=20071027&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=1027005&Ref=PH&Profile=1006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bobby Richardson

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bobby Richardson's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "minors":

• From Barry Zito: "Barry Zito Minor League Statistics & History". Baseball-Reference.com (Minors). Retrieved October 17, 2013.
• From José Rijo: "Jose Rijo Minor League Statistics & History". Baseball-Reference. Retrieved August 5, 2009.
• From Wally Moses: "A Moses Emerges To Aid A's". The Sporting News. January 3, 1935. p. 1.
• From Madison Bumgarner: "Madison Bumgarner Minor League Statistics & History". Baseball-Reference.com (Minors). Retrieved March 5, 2014.
• From Tommy John: "Tommy John Minor & Independent League Stats". Baseball-Reference (Minors). Retrieved March 31, 2020.
• From Dave Stewart (baseball): "Dave Stewart minor league statistics & history". Baseball Reference. Retrieved September 26, 2014.
• From Édgar Rentería: "Edgar Renteria Minor League Statistics". Baseball-Reference.com. Retrieved April 1, 2011.
• From Mariano Rivera: "Mariano Rivera Minor League Statistics & History". Baseball-Reference.com. Retrieved March 10, 2017.
• From Pablo Sandoval: "Pablo Sandoval Minor League Statistics & History". Baseball-Reference.com (Minors). Retrieved July 18, 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bobby Richardson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 19:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take on this review. I will leave some section-by-section comments in the next few days. Thanks to the nominator for the work on this entry. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• "though it was not until 1959 that he would become a regular at second base" - Can we reword this to clarify whether he was playing another position or just not a regular? It seems unusual for someone to become an All-Star before becoming a regular.

• "catching McCovey's line drive in what The Sporting News called baseball's 13th most memorable play" - For context, the year they produced this list might be helpful; it doesn't appear to be specified in the body or in the SABR biography, but there's a book on Amazon by this title that was published in 1999.

Early life

• "11 out of 16 Major League Baseball (MLB) teams" - Consider rewording this sentence per MOS:NUMNOTES while still respecting the bit about comparable values. Maybe "Richardson received interest from 11 of the 16..."

• Consider linking Bill Harris - I assume this is Bill Harris (1930s pitcher).

1953-1956

• 171 hits - seems out of place; the rest of the 1954 stats are placed inside parentheses ("hits (171, first)").

I'll come back and finish the rest of the sections soon, but this looks like a well-written and well-referenced entry that shouldn't have any problem being promoted. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Made all changes suggested so far! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

1957-59

• The opening sentence of this section seems overly long. Consider splitting into two sentences.

• "great stops and catches...no one gets rid of the ball" - Per MOS:ELLIPSIS, place an nbsp before the ellipsis and a regular space after the ellipsis.

• "the first time as this year, the Yankees defeated the Braves..." - comma after time and not year

1960-62

• Reference spot check: The involvement of Sport magazine in the Corvette seems to be supported by the SABR bio, not by The Times and Democrat reference. (T&D mentions the Corvette but not Sport.)
  • T&D mentions he got the car, but SABR clarifies who it is from, so I changed it so that both references are cited for the sentence. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The Society for American Baseball Research called 1962 his most productive year" - I wouldn't phrase it this way; SABR BioProject bios are the work of individual volunteer SABR members with a few others involved in the editorial process, so the statements in a bio don't really represent an official stance of the organization.

1963-66

• In the second sentence, I don't think you need "During the season".

• last paragraph - "1965 campaign" - It's hard to write an encyclopedia article without some jargon, but I think "season" is much better here for the more casual reader, especially since he did enter politics a decade later.

• "he addressed the fans" - addressed usually means "spoke to", not "said to".
  • Yes, and he did speak to them - this wasn't just a newspaper ad. Addressed is used correctly here. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

1976 political campaign

• succeeded in convincing Richardson --> convinced Richardson

Personal life

• "Today, he is a speaker" - Avoid today per WP:RELTIME.

References

• There is some inconsistency in the use of lowercase/uppercase for periodical article titles in the reference list. Most are written in title case, but some are sentence case (like ref #78, NY Daily News article).
  • The inconsistency is in the articles themselves. I formatted the titles however the article itself did. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that's all I have. I appreciate your hard work on this well-written entry! Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: