Talk:Pat Venditte

Playing career is apparently over

Pat has ended his playing career according to an Oct. 8, 2021 article in the Omaha World-Herald, Ambidextrous pitcher Pat Venditte to be inducted into Creighton Athletics Hall of Fame. The article says he has "stepped away" and hasn't trained since May 2021. In his Creighton Hall of Fame acceptance speech (timestamp 706) he starts by saying he is now selling A-V equipment, although he doesn't mention retiring from playing. Danaxtell (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Umpire ruling - who picks first

I am removing the uncited section which claims that the MLB informally decided that the umpires ruled incorrectly on the switch hitter/switch pitcher matter. I can't find any reference which supports that. In fact, I found a reference with says exactly the opposite

The next day, the at-bat prompted the league to re-establish a rule that forces a batter to select a side of the plate to hit from. [1]

The article is otherwise very good about citing sources, and I think we should try to keep it that way (although it needs some cleaning up - with a unified citation scheme). --Alienmercy (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Stats

I've been updating the stats box after every game when he plays, I assume this is ok? Cryomaniac (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. It seems to be a fairly common practice for the pages of major leaguers. A citation/link to his official stats page might be nice. Maybe we could put an info box in the upper right corner of the page with his photo (if a free one can be found) and everything. Does anyone out there attend SI Yanks games that could maybe snap a few photos of him pitching - like maybe once from each side? --Alienmercy (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I think there is already a link to his stats page. I'll take a look at the Yankees players for infobox colours etc. Cryomaniac (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I just added the MLB infobox, if someone wants to edit the infobox to make it applicable to minor league players, please could you do it, since I don't know how. Cryomaniac (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Something needs to be done about them, because I think it looks a mess at the moment. If someone can suggest or do something about it it would help. What I did before that's now been reverted was how I've seen it done elsewhere, it wasn't intentional. Cryomaniac (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask what the problem is? Peronally, I like the Harvard style because it is a standard style and Wikipedia provides all the templates. If you do it the way you changed it to before, you need to make sure you keep around all the actual bibliographic information and inline it for each reference. I personally like the current way better because you don't have to inline the references; you just need to maintain a collection there at the end. I'm open to change, but I'd like to see us stick to some kind of standard, and I'd like it to be easy to edit (like it is now). Alienmercy (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have 2 problems I with the system currently used in the article, first it isn't used on all that many wikipedia articles, and second I personally think it makes the article harder to read. I do see your point about the other way being harder to edit, but most articles use it. Take today's featured article for example: Ironclad warship. Cryomaniac (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That uses both a footnotes section and a references section. You might be able to do that the way you were trying before, but you have to keep the references section there too so that the footnotes have context. If that allows us to not have to inline the entire bibliography entry for each citation, I'm fine with it. Alienmercy (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who added the first (and almost all) of the citations to this article, I really don't appreciate the style being changed without finishing the discussion. Note that in the Wikipedia style guidelines (WP:CITE#HOW) it says

Where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected.

I think that I was being very reasonable in requesting that, if the style is changed, we continue to use a system that does not require references to be inlined. I'm fine with the numbered "footnote" style, but can we please go back to keeping the references all organized in one place? Alienmercy (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, my apologies - I thought that it was left that as long as all of the citations were left intact, a change was fine. I didn't mean to offend anyone, and certainly don't mind if it's reverted. With that said, though, I think that the previous style is much better suited to more academic works, not so much for the biography of a minor league pitcher. --fuzzy510 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense is taken. Also, I don't mean to be a jerk about it, I just wanted to talk about it first. Personally, I don't like maintaining articles cluttered with bibliography info that you always have to move around and look all over the place to find reference names. If others ultimately want to keep this system and are actually planning on including citations (for instance in the Pat Venditte Rule section), I will not stand in the way. Alienmercy (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that sentiment, but I don't really know how much of an issue it really is. For the most part, once a source is introduced, all of the citations should be added, and there's no searching to be done. There was certainly a little bit of searching that I had to do when I put in the citations last night, but that was because I was working with 14 sources at the same time. I think there's also something to be said for using a system that's more common on the project, at least among these types of articles. I, for one, had to look to see how the Harvard citation template even works; I'd never seen it used before. Assuming I'm not in the minority (which I very well could be), I think it encourages more people to properly cite their sources if they don't have to try and learn a new template syntax to do so. --fuzzy510 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Venditte's batting hand

(disregarding the part where he's a 35 year old AAAA reliever and this'll likely never be relevant in a practical sense....)

ESPN.com, MLB.com, baseball-reference, and the Miami Marlins' official website (which I guess just counts as part of MLB.com, but still) all list him as "bats left." It was changed on this article to "bats switch" without an edit summary a couple months ago. I just changed it back. Curiously Retrosheet does list him this way, and The Baseball Cube lists him as "bats right." So who's authoritative here? I'm inclined to say MLB.com, but who knows. Did he ever bat in college? Anonymous Contributor 012786 (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

He actually batted in the Majors once (and worked a full count!) but it was left-handed against a right-handed pitcher (A.J. Schugel) so it's hard to say for sure on the basis of that. Anonymous Contributor 012786 (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Pat Venditte

i just wanted to say whoever wrote original info is wrong about him being only player that is a switch pitcher in MLB Greg Harris who was best known as a Texas Ranger also pitched with both left and right arms. Don't represent Wikipedia with false information - wikipedia is today's version of an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia is supposed to present info as facts -

not opinions or theories 2600:6C54:4E00:115D:9290:E138:495C:1451 (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)