Wikipedia

Talk:Reggie Jackson/Archive 1

< Talk:Reggie Jackson
Latest comment: 15 years ago by 140.254.45.40 in topic A's or Yankees?
Archive 1

I think this is wrong

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"This Series marked the first time that two teams from the State of California played each other for a sport's World Championship (other sports organizing by geography, East and West, makes this possible only in baseball)"

The NBA has their conferences by geography. But the NFL does not. So, two teams from California can play each other in the Super Bowl.

In fact, the San Francisco 49ers defeated the San Diego Chargers in a Super Bowl in the mid 1990s.


{{editprotected}} Not really sure how to use this template (I'm just gonna write it at the front of my post), but since the page is protected I can't make this minor edit. From the "Later Career" section: "His accomplishments include winning the both the regular-season and World Series MVP awards in 1973."

Obviously there is an extra the. Clemenjo 03:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You used it correctly, and the change has been made. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kirby Puckett and Reggie Jackson 1987 World Series.JPG

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Kirby Puckett and Reggie Jackson 1987 World Series.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A's or Yankees?

Latest comment: 15 years ago32 comments16 people in discussion

There has been a longstanding debate over the info box colors (Yankees or A's) that should be used for Reggie. He played more years on Oakland, won more titles (3 to 2) as a member of the A's, and finished his career on Oakland in 1987. The article also states that he initially intended to go into the Hall of Fame with an A's cap but was bitter at the organization for firing him as a coach in 1991 and promptly reconciled with Steinbrenner and subsequently went into the HOF as a Yankee. (this was before the HOF took the decision away from the players). Then again, he is famous as Mr. October for the Yanks, even though he played less years in NY with less overall stats. Personally, I think the only fair resolution is to retain the photo of him as a Yankee but to show OAK colors, that way both teams are represented. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pascack (talk • contribs).

I would support having the Yankees photo with the Oakland infobox colors. -- P.B. Pilhet 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yankees colors because his hall of fame plaque has Yankees, and when you see pictures of him he usually is wearing a Yankee uniform--Yankees10 23:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10
I think he was more well known as a Yankee, plus he retired as one so I vote for Yankee's colors. Momusufan 23:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
He actually retired as a member of the A's, so I don't know what you are talking about. We're just going to keep it with OAK colors and the NY photo for now, so both sides are represented until this is properly resolved. pascack 24:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's leave both teams represented until the issue is resolved. -- P.B. Pilhet 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
yeah, he did retire as a A but who cares who he retires with its who hes most known for playing for--Yankees10 00:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10
Well you keep talking about Jeff Nelson retiring as a Yankee. But he had three different stints with Seattle and pitched more years for the M's, so I can say who cares that he signed a publicity stunt contract to retire as a Yankee at the beginning of the season? It goes both ways. Would like to see some unbiased votes here (going by your username, it is no surprise you vote Yankees) And by the way, the 3-time consecutive World Champion A's teams from 1972-74 were much more dominant than the 1977-78 Yankees. Reggie put up better stats and played more years for those A's teams, that is how most non-New Yorkers mostly remember him. Do you think it is a coincidence he was going to choose an A's cap for his plaque until he was upset that he got fired as an A's coach after 1991? Pascack 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Pascack
It has nothing to do with me being a Yankee fan, I agreed with the Dave Winfeld being Padres colors, and also I think Carlton Fisk should have Red Sox colors, and I plain old HATE the Red Sox, the whole point is Jeff didnt didnt sign with the Mariners, he signed with the Yankees meaning he wanted to be remembered as being a Yankee, he had the chance probably to sign with the M's. And what it all comes down to is I think you just hate the Yankees, because of the changes you have made to Yankees players, changing Craig Nettles to padres colors, when he is clearly known for his time with the Yanks--Yankees10 01:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees
Retired players should not have colors, period. Obviously there are some professional athletes that would have a clear-cut choice for colors. However, there are others that might be impossible to agree upon. Therefore the sake of consistency, retired players should not have colors. They are not under contract with teams anyway, there is no need for them.Chris Nelson 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I might think you are a moran Chris Nelson, but I actually agree with you, it was the same problem with the retired player football infoboxes, I dont think there should be color either--Yankees10 01:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10
He started his career with the Athletics, ended his career with the Athletics, won more World Series titles with the Athletics. I think that the Athletics should represent his colors because he wore Oakland's colors more when playing.
But if you really wanted my opinion on colors, I would say that all non-current athletes should have neutral colors in their infoboxes. I said that originally, but I'm saying it later than Chrisjnelson because I was forced into an edit conflict. But I would've said that first if it weren't for the edit conflict. --Ksy92003(talk) 01:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Pascack, the current infobox is probably best (A's colors, Yanks photo). Just my $0.02. - Masonpatriot 01:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy with neutral colors (even if it does get rid of a favorite aspect of making infoboxes) if it means that we can end this pedantic dispute over 12 characters in an infobox. -- Transaspie 01:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we should bring this to the WikiProject Baseball/Players to see if there is a way we can get neutral colors like the LightBlueSteel (or whatever the color is) in the football infoboxes into the MLB retired infoboxes--Yankees10 01:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10
Yankees10 asked me to comment here so here are my thoughts: the colors used should reflect the team colors of the team with which the player played the most games for (in this case - Oakland). This is based solely on games played and keeps subjectivity out of the discussion. However, there are two other possibilities. 1) All retired players are moved to neutral colors (not likely) 2) In the case of players in the HOF, if wikipedians (as in the community as a whole) agree that the players colors should reflect those of the team the player is associated with in the HOF, then that would be fine. It however, needs to be addressed on a larger scale and should probably include the baseball, basketball, football, and hockey communities. //10:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair argument. Reggie was a mercenary. He jumped from team to team. His greatest fame was likely with the Yankees. Remember, he was "the straw that stirred the drink" there... and his plague shows him in a Yankees cap. [1] Baseball Bugs 11:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's another straw, er, possibility: If his cap disagrees with the stat on who he played the most games with, then use neutral colors. Or how about this for out-of-the-batters-box thinking: Include the colors of all his teams. A rainbow coalition, as it were. Baseball Bugs 11:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all - it is GRAIG Nettles, not Craig Nettles. If you are a Yankee fan, you should know that. Second, Jeff Nelson's signing with the Yanks was a publicity stunt by Steinbrenner, nothing more, nothing less. In Reggie's case, I think the best compromise is OAK colors with the Yankee photo. That way - it is split equally for both teams since he played more years and won more titles in OAK but is remembered well with the Yanks too. As for his HOF plaque, the article itself states he planned to wear an A's cap but only chose Yankees after the A's fired him as a coach in '91 and Steinbrenner rehired him.
I might be remembering incorrectly, but I'm thinking some or all of those colors were even in place in K.C. (as was Reggie) before the A's moved to Oakland. Baseball Bugs 12:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Reggie Jackson played his first season with the Kansas City A's before they moved to Oakland - same green and yellow colors. As for Reggie's infobox, let's take an objective look at his career:
This man played 4 years in the Bronx compared to 9 with Oakland...yet somehow he has managed to be perminantly linked to the Yankees.

REGGIE JACKSON IS AN OAKLAND ATHLETIC......: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.45.40 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A's: 1,346 games, 756 runs, 1,228 hits, 269 HR, 776 RBI, 145 SB, 3 World Series titles
Angels: 687 games, 331 runs, 557 hits, 123 HR, 374 RBI, 14 SB
Yankees: 653 games, 380 runs, 661 hits, 144 HR, 461 RBI, 41 SB, 2 World Series titles
Orioles: 134 games, 84 runs, 138 hits, 27 HR, 91 RBI, 28 SB
He actually played more games with the Angels too than he did with the Yankees. While some of his Yankees exploits are well-known, I don't know how you can put NY above OAK colors here, as he played twice as many games in Oakland and put up better overall stats. As a result, I'd have to vote for the A's here. Joeidaho 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: The above user (Joeidaho) was created very recently (June 25th) and his only contributions are to the Jeff Nelson article and this page. Thus, he may be an illegal sockpuppet of one of the other users on this page. I strongly recommend that his opinion(s) be disregarded; no offense Joeidaho if you are a legitimate user, but we have to be very careful about sockpuppets trying to turn the arguments in their favor. -- P.B. Pilhet 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Joeidaho doesnt count because, I am pretty sure it is Pascack, just using a different name, like his 5 other IP addresses he uses, and the Nettles thing was a mistake, I tried to change it but there was edit conflicts so I said screw it after a while, and its not how many games they played for a team its which team hes most known for playing with, and I believe its the Yankees--Yankees10 15:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10
Yeah, Joe, I'd recommend that you just stay out of this discussion, unfortunately. Even if you aren't a sockpuppet, you're just too new and the circumstances are not in your favor. Sorry. -- P.B. Pilhet 15:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem - I didn't mean to offend anyone as I am a friend of Pascack's and he told me to create an account so I can vote on his causes (he said Yankees10 was sending private messages out to various users to vote Yankees so he was trying to recruit the same). I will stay out of it all the same, but I hope my statistical research can help in the argument. Joeidaho 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
They werent private messages, hello, we need more than 2 people to vote--Yankees10 16:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10
First of all, I don't know how you can be considered unbiased based off your screen name. Second, you obviously sent messages to all your Yankee buddies to try and scew the poll, so I I contacted some of my friends. Look at the stats, he was an Oakland A for twice as long as he was a Yankee and he won more titles in Oakland too. Pascack 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no clue if any of those people are Yankees fans, I just asked if they wanted to contribute to the poll--Yankees10 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10
I realize this one is a tough call, but I think the current approach (colors and photo) works; however, given the HoF plaque, I wouldn't argue strongly against Yankee colors, either. (Note: I'd definitely choose the Mariners in Nelson's case.) MisfitToys 23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm late, but here is the breaker for me on the colors. HE IS EMPLOYED BY THE YANKEES! He may have been more successful and been a better player in Oakland, but he earned his nickname for what he did for the Yankees, he went into the HOF a Yankee, and he is still a member of the organization. Yankee colors all the way, although I'm fine with the current approach. Soxrock
Maybe there's some way to make the colors fade-in/fade-out from one team to another. Baseball Bugs 22:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He is more famous as Mr. October, as a Yankee. He's in the HoF as a NY Yankee. If he works as a consultant for Mr. Steinbrenner, than he still works with the Yankees organization. If he was bitter with the organization that fired him, the A's, to not wear their cap in the HoF, than I think he'd be bitter about having A colors on wikipedia. 208.168.232.150 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that in his last year, Jackson was a teammate of Mark McGwire's in Big Mac's rookie season. McGwire also played his final season with a rookie Albert Pujols. On the same subject, should McGwire's main association be with the A's or Cardinals?

Look at Jimmie Foxx. He played more years with the A's than with the Red Sox. But he's mostly remembered as a Red Sox player. So, enough with the "he's played longer" or any biased. What team will is he, and will he for the years coming, be best remembered playing for? Mghabmw 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rickey Henderson was an A. I agree with his colors being A colors. I just don't believe that Reggie shouldn't be a Yankee. I love Rickey and all. And McGuire should be assoc. with the Cards. 208.168.233.183 16:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems like it should be easy to me. Reggie Jackson is in the hall of fame in a Yankees uniform. He has been immortalized by the hall as a Yankee. Long after he is dead, he will still be wearing a Yankee uniform. Colors are a bad idea for retired players, but if you are going to use them, its obvious it should be Yankee colors in this case. And this is coming from someone who hates the Yankees. --Keithn 14:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are the infobox colors of the A's and not the Yankees?

Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments10 people in discussion

This is a fine example of how many edits are not good edits, and how compulsive editing leads to the deteriorating quality of articles. First off, go to this link [2], and you'll see from the HoF website, Jackson was inducted as a Yankee. Next, have a look at this picture I took on March of 2007 of Reggie Jackson [3], and you'll see that he attends Spring Training games wearing a Yankees hat. Maybe he spent the most time with the A's, but he's best known as a Yankee. As an ardent loather of the Yankees, I'm doing this more to see Wikipedia do the right thing, than serve as a shill for the evil empire. So someone, anyone, change the colors to Yankee colors. Googie man 18:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


He played twice as many years on the A's, put up better overall stats on the A's, won more titles with the A's, and retired as a member of the A's. Pretty much a no-brainer there. The reason he wears a Yankee cap at spring training is because he currently works as a consultant for George Steinbrenner. He was originally planning to go into the Hall of Fame with an A's cap but was angry at the organization when they fired him as a coach after the 1991 season. Still, his career is much more reflective of the time spent in Oakland. 192.234.99.1 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

that dude is totally wrong he is remembered by the Yankeees, not the A's

hes in the hall of fame as a Yankee dumbass, not a A

He is more famous as Mr. October, as a Yankee. He's in the HoF as a NY Yankee. If he works as a consultant for Mr. Steinbrenner, than he still works with the Yankees organization. 208.168.232.150 22:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This 208.168.232.150 has changed colors of various individuals to Yankees. He is a biased Yankee fan. As for the HOF cap, Reggie has stated publicly that he originally wanted to wear an A's cap in the Hall of Fame but ultimately chose Yankees because he was upset he was fired by Oakland as a coach in 1991 and Steinbrenner gave him a high-level consulting job in the NY organization in exchange for the cap.Pascack 11:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you open your mouth, I'm a Marlins fan. He chose to go down in history as a Yankee, give him that honor here. 208.168.238.39 02:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Reggie has stated publicly that he originally wanted to wear an A's cap" - do you have a source? Nonetheless, even if what you say is true, that doesn't negate the fact that Reggie was inducted as a Yankee. Googie man 15:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Snub spurred Reggie" Per USA Today:

Outfielder Reggie Jackson, who finished with 563 career home runs, played 21 seasons, including nine with Oakland and five with the Yankees.

He had planned to go in as an Athletic, but after Oakland fired him as a batting coach in 1991 — they told him it was to save his $65,000-a-year salary — he opted to go into the Hall as a Yankee.

"I got left out in the cold," Jackson says. "I was deserted. I was living in Oakland and wanted to be a Hall of Famer in the community. A black hero. A person of color. But I had no roots."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/hallfame/2001-08-02-focus.htm

The dude is in the hall of fame as a Yankee, not a frickin A

Look, he may have wanted to be an A, but does that matter? He went in a Yankee. Alot of people think of him as a Yankee when I ask (Reggie Jackson, A or Yankee?) so I believe that either the colors should be Yankees OR, as Wahkeenah suggested earlier, maybe have half A's colors and half Yankee colors Soxrock 11:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts are facts:

A's: 1,346 games, 756 runs, 1,228 hits, 269 HR, 776 RBI, 145 SB, 3 World Series titles

Angels: 687 games, 331 runs, 557 hits, 123 HR, 374 RBI, 14 SB

Yankees: 653 games, 380 runs, 661 hits, 144 HR, 461 RBI, 41 SB, 2 World Series titles

Orioles: 134 games, 84 runs, 138 hits, 27 HR, 91 RBI, 28 SB


Pascack 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Yes, facts are facts. With this the case, then you'll have no problem with the fact that RJ is Mr. October because of his World Series appearances as a Yankee, he's in the HoF as a Yankee, and is best known as a....Yankee! Googie man 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hall of Fame cap argument is garbage. He is wearing a Yankees cap because George Steinbrenner gave him a plum job in return for the cap. It means nothing - if the A's never fire Jackson in 1991, then he goes in with an Oakland cap. Also, if the HOF was making the decisions then instead of the player, they would have overruled him and forced him to wear an Oakland cap (like they did with Gary Carter when he wanted to go in as a Met, but he played twice as many years with Montreal).

In cases like this, you have to be objective and realize that not only did Reggie win more titles in Oakland (3) than New York (2) but he also played twice as many years. He also finished his career with Oakland. You'd have to say the Oakland A's were most representative of his overall career.

OK, so when Roger Clemens is inducted into the HoF, and he goes in as a Yankee (which he will), you'll be changing the colors of his infobox to the Red Sox? Googie man 22:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely ZERO way that Roger Clemens goes into the Hall of Fame as a Yankee. He is without question going in as a Red Sox. The guy is tied with Cy Young for all-time wins as a Red Sox and he pitched twice as many years in Boston as New York. I believe the Hall has already publicly commented on this that it will be Boston cap after Clemens through his hissy fit a few years ago about wanting a Yankees cap. Pascack 22:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's remember this about 6 to 7 years from now, because I'll bet you, Roger goes in as a Yankee. I agree entirely with what the comment below that the precedent is to follow the player's preference. Googie man 15:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
People this out of touch with reality shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia. If you want, we can get in touch and we can bet everything you're worth that he will go in as a Yankee. --Keithn 14:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I recommend you read this, then you tell me who is the one out of touch. It's kind of funny really, I've been editing for a long time. Longer than you even. As for Roger Clemens, here's how I'll amend what I said before. I'll bet everything I am, and you're worth too, that Roger's *preference* will be to go in as a Yankee. I wasn't aware that the rule that's been around for a long time, that a player can chose the team under which he's inducted, had been changed. Personally, I think newbies surfing in and insulting the old guard are the ones who shouldn't be allowed to edit. However, the etiquette of the online world is that there is no etiquette. Ultimately, this whole flap over RJ's colors on the infobox has been MUCH more trouble that it's worth. Googie man 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't talking to you. Notice how I am indented one tab under Pascack's post, just like you were? Notice how I was willing to bet everything Pascack was worth that Clemens would go in as a Yankee? Hmm... wonder who my comment was directed at (hint: it was Pascack.) Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote instead of getting insecure and defensive. --Keithn 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This this is my mistake and please accept my apologies for it. I'm now so accutomed to getting attacked, and Wikipedia turning into a feeding ground for people with their own agendas, that I failed to register that you weren't attacking me. Thanks, Googie man 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to bet my life's fortune that Roger Clemens wears a Red Sox hat in the Hall. There is absolutely no way that he goes in as a Yankee. Why would he? He is still most remembered as a Red Sox. He won more Cy Youngs in Boston than NY. He recorded both 20-strikeout games with Boston. He won 192 of his 350 games in Boston. And he has played 13 of his 24 seasons in Boston. This argument is beyond assenine and is far less debatable than Reggie Jackson. At least with Jackson, I can understand why people might think he is best remembered for his 5 years in New York even though the majority of his career numbers were recorded in Oakland. With Clemens, he has played far more years in Boston, his best years were with Boston, and he is the Red Sox' all-time co-leader in wins. This is a no-brainer and I can guarantee you that even if he wants to go in a Yankee, the Hall would overrule him there. Pascack 22:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You had me engaged in the debate until this: "This argument is beyond assenine". Your statement and your attitude is what's beyond aSInine, aSInine, not assenine. Your argument certainly does not show good faith or anything positive towards *my* argument or intentions, and using such harsh derogatory language is not, has not, and never will be, accepted practice on Wikipedia. Furthermore, for an argument that is "assenine", you're certainly putting a lot of time and effort into disproving it. Furthermore, I think you'll at least admit that Clemens and the city of Boston left on each other on fairly acrimonious terms. Do you *really* think that Clemens will want to go into the Hall representing not only a team, but a city, who considers him a traitor, and have vociferously said as much? Do you *really* think that MLB and the HoF will ignore the wishes of someone as influential as Clemens. So anyway, I'm done with this, and you. If you want Oakland colors on WP, have at it, I have bigger things to care about in life. I strongly suggest you clean up your attitude with future debates on WP, and for God's sake, get a dictionary, or pay attention to the spell checker when editing, at least. Googie man 13:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


First of all, your argument is outdated. Clemens left Boston on bad terms 11 years ago and his issue was mainly with former GM Dan Duquette. Duquette had long since left the Red Sox organization and in the past few years, Clemens has maintained a good relationship with Theo Epstein and has said to have been very touched by the reception Boston fans gave him the last time he pitched in Fenway Park. If he was so upset at the Boston franchise, then why would he have publicly stated that the only 3 teams he would consider playing for in 2007 were the Astros, Yankees, or RED SOX? He was willing to come back to Boston this year, but ultimately, the Yanks needed pitching more and offered him the most money. I can guarantee you if Boston offered him the most money, he'd be pitching at Fenway right now. And finally, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE CLEMENS' CHOICE REGARDING THE HALL OF FAME CAP! In some cases, where the argument is close and could go either way, such as Carlton Fisk with Boston/Chicago, or when Piazza gets inducted - Mets/Dodgers, I can see the Hall going with whatever the player chooses, since both franchises are strong representations of his Hall of Fame career. However, in Clemens' case, this is not a toss-up. If he retired the day after he left Boston 11 years ago, he was still going to the Hall of Fame. His career is overwhelmingly best represented by his time in Boston, and if he tries to express preference for a Yankee cap, the HOF will overrule him (like they did when Gary Carter wanted to wear a Mets cap - the situation is no different here). This shows that Clemens no longer bears a grudge against the Red Sox.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2006/04/04/clemens_makes_visit_to_clubhouse/

Pascack 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

From your user page - "This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Reggie Jackson, you will be blocked from editing. Stop changing Team Colors in the info box, it is considered vandalism. Momusufan 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)". Not good. I'd say what little credibility on the issue you have to begin with, has now been completely negated. Please go to MySpace and disturb the baseball fans there. Googie man 15:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


The HoF has the overall decision on what cap they wear. The player request is only that, a request. The cap they choose is representative to the players' career.

Example, Wade Boggs wanted to wear a Tampa Bay hat.

Time in a team has NOTHING to do with it.
Which team did the player earn to be in the HoF?
Mghabmw 02:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


- I simply believe that Pascack is biased against the NY Yankees. 63.130.198.38 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to agree with that...


Look at Jimmie Foxx. He played more years with the A's than with the Red Sox. But he's mostly remembered as a Red Sox player. So, enough with the "he's played longer" or any biased. What team will is he, and will he for the years coming, be best remembered playing for? Mghabmw 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Rickey Henderson was an A. I agree with his colors being A colors. I just don't believe that Reggie shouldn't be a Yankee. I love Rickey and all. 208.168.233.183 16:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

---

      • Tom Seaver retired as a Red Sox player. He's Mets colors. Nolan Ryan was on other teams for longer than the Rangers. However, he gets Rangers colors because he was remembered as a Ranger. Reggie was remembered as a Yankee. So, I say he gets Yankee cap.


Tom Seaver is a HoF Met [4]. Mghabmw 18:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

The HOF currently exercises its right to choose the cap, but prior to the Wade Boggs controversy, they never enforced this rule and strictly went with whatever the player chose. It is likely if Reggie was inducted today, that they would have forced him to go in with an A's cap based on the fact that he played twice as many years with them, and would not have made the HOF based on his 5 years with the Yankees alone. The reason they stopped him from wearing a Tampa hat is because he was payed by the Devil Rays if he wore the hat. Time has nothing to do with it. He earned HoF numbers in the Red Sox. Jackson became a star in NY. 208.168.225.59 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"I didn't come to New York to be a star, I brought my star with me." - Reggie Jackson. He was already a star when he went to NY. Also, by the time he went to the Yankees, he was already a WS MVP, AL MVP, AL RBI Champ, and AL Home Run champion twice in the years he was in Oakland. --Rabbethan 02:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
He was a star when he came to New York, and left a superstar. Googie man 02:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
He was a superstar in Oakland. Pascack 13:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Recall people's memories of Reggie Jackson. Is he an A or an Yankee?

And enough with the Yankee bias/anti-bias. Mghabmw 15:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the Reggie Jackson webpage, the photos are of him as a Yankee. He currently sells only an autographed home Yankee jersey. There is an A's bobblehead. Mghabmw 15:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


All this is another example of how rogue, abusive users hijack Wikipedia. This is why we lose good editors. The Visigoths are taking over Rome. Googie man 19:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at Jimmie Foxx. He played more years with the A's than with the Red Sox. But he's mostly remembered as a Red Sox player. So, enough with the "he's played longer" or any biased. What team will is he, and will he for the years coming, be best remembered playing for? Mghabmw 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rickey Henderson was an A. I agree with his colors being A colors. I just don't believe that Reggie shouldn't be a Yankee. I love Rickey and all. 208.168.233.183 16:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Panamanian? Cuban? or Puerto Rican?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What, if at all, is Reggie Jackson's connection to Panama? His page is linked to the Panamanian-Americans category page, but he's from Pennsylvania and his father's Puerto Rican. There's no mention of Panama anywhere in the article. Misterdoe 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading since childhood (I am 38 yrs old and have spent my whole life in New York City; Reggie is my first ever sports hero) that Reggie's father was *Cuban* and not Puerto Rican. I wish I could remember any source. Being of Puerto Rican descent myself, I believe that Reggie would be celebrated, honored, and revered even *more* than he already is and was in New York because of the always large "Puerto Rican pride" in New York City. Jlg9999989 18:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reggie Jackson - Game 6 of the 1977 World Series

I was at Game 6 of the 1977 World Series and saw each of Reggie's home runs. The article is wrong in saying that the first home run was high-arcing. The first and second home runs were carbon copies of each other - line drives into the lower right field seats.

The article misses something else. Reggie homered in his last at bat in Game 5. That, together with his performance in Game 6, means that he hit four consecutive home runs on four consecutive swings of the bat.

He's a Yankee

Latest comment: 17 years ago34 comments7 people in discussion

I think Reggie should be recognized as a Yankees, because he was inducted into the Hall of Fame as A Yank. Therefor I think the colors on the page shoud be those of the Yankees.


Again - he was only inducted as a Yankee because the Hall didn't overrule players' decisions back then. If he was inducted today, he would go in as an Athletic because he played twice as long in Oakland with better career stats. He wore a Yankee cap only because he was upset with Oakland management for firing him as hitting coach and Steinbrenner gave him a plum senior management job in return for the Hall cap. Pascack 19:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Again - you have a history of poor behavior on Wikipedia. User page blanking, as you've done, is the refuge of Wikipedia scoundrels. Why, therefore, should we take your word about Jackson and Steinbrenner? If you can offer a credible source for this, then maybe you can gain some credibility and restore your tarnished reputation. I for one, remember the days when reputation mattered on Wikipedia. Googie man 20:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The Hall has ALWAYS had the decision on which team a player is inducted under. In this case, they agreed with Mr. Jackson. They cannot accept that a player wears a cap on the merit of getting a job - it has to match their career, or else Wade Boggs will go down in chapters of history as a Tampa Bay Devil Ray. But he's Red Sox'er and Mr. Jackson is a Yankee. Mghabmw 03:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason for why he was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame as either a member of the Athletics or the Yankees is immaterial. We can't debate whether or not he should be in the Hall as an Athletic or a Yankee. We don't know why he was inducted as a Yankee or why he wasn't inducted as an Athletic. That is completely immaterial to which colors he should have in his infobox. ––Ksy92003(talk) 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point, particularly about why he was inducted as a Yankee. The only thing any of us know as fact is that he is in the Hall of Fame as a *Yankee*. The colors should be returned to Yankee colors, and the troll holding us all hostage banned forever. 13:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hall has ALWAYS had the authority but they never began enforcing things until after the Wade Boggs controversy. Pascack 16:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously they didnt find it necessary in the case of Reggie Jackson. 208.168.227.147 17:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"And it is obvious you dont like the Yankees considering you vandalized the colors on Don Mattingleys infobox, keep it up and you will be BANNED for good--Yankees10 19:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10"
Does that look familiar pascak? you have something against the yankees and your opinion should be nulled. you changed don mattingly's page, what's your excuse for that. he was a yankees lifer and is the bench coach, why change his colors? 208.168.227.147 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing the colors of Mattingly, who is about as much of a Yankee as Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, or Mantle? Pretty bush league. Asinine is really the more appropriate word. Now how much longer are we going to allow this to go on? Googie man 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The page change mentioned above. 208.168.227.147 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


It seems like there's one major objector to his colors being navy blue and grey against multiple supporters.
Reggie was a good Athletic and even part of the "greatest team ever" - the '72 Oakland A's as Homer Simpson put it, but people seem to remember him best as a New York Yankee, as Mr. October, as someone who was there when "the Bronx was burning" regardless of him playing more years with the A's. He even associates himself with the Yankees with hats and uniforms!
I'm feeling kind of hijacked myself.
Mghabmw 13:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And that certain someone has a anti-Yankee history. Changing Donnie baseball's colors...
I think this is interesting...
208.169.94.8 13:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"16:39, 22 June 2007 Pascack (Talk | contribs) (13,624 bytes) (undid revision by Yankees10, I agree - he deserves to be shown as a Padre. Carter has worked with the Mets for the past 10 yrs and Winfield is still with the Padres now.) (undo)"

That's funny, Reggie works for the Yankees now as a consultant. He's in the hall of fame as a Yankee, but someone wants A's colors due to the years played in KC/Oakland. But Dave Winfield played more games in NY than in San Diego, but he should be in Padres colors. Hmmm... Double standard? Mghabmw 03:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You peopleWhat everybody needs to try to understand is that players aren't judged by how many games they played for a team. If a player batted .082 for 2 years with a team, 0 HR and 2 RBI, then was traded and hit .164 with 2 HR and 4 RBI for a couple weeks, using the logic that you have given based on time of playing with a team, you'd say he should have Team #1's colors, even though he put up better numbers with Team #2. There are other things to take into consideration. Roberto Clemente had tremendous numbers. He would've been elected into the Hall of Fame based on those numbers alone. But after his accident, when he was elected into the Hall of Fame it was because of his humanitarian efforts. He could've been the worst player on the face of the Earth and still gotten in the Hall because of the circumstances. You see? There are plenty of situations you need to take into account. And in Clemente's case, pure statistics aren't proof enough. Additionally, it makes no difference who Reggie Jackson is better known for playing for which team, because that's our opinion (WP:COI). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we only have encyclopedic content here on Wikipedia. And this debate that you guys are having about which colors should be on the article are your opinions. You can't place your opinions into Wikipedia's mainspace because it's WP:COI, but most importantly POV. Ksy92003(talk) 04:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It's your opinion that the whole debate is about opinion, so doesn't that fact entirely negate your article? Furthermore, please display a more respectful tone when attempting to engage a debate on WP. You haven't been editing WP long enough to assume such a tone of condescending authority. Lastly, your argument with regard to Roberto Clemente is somewhat specious. Almost all major league players do some sort of charity work. Do you think that Thurman Munson would've been elected to the HoF if his plane crashed on his way to a children's hospital? Googie man 11:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What was wrong with my tone in that comment? Ksy92003(talk) 17:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
"You people need to understand that players aren't judged by how many games they played for a team." You people? You start off by missing everyone else's point, and that's as good as it gets. Your point about Clemente is entirely wrong, and you tell us "people" that we don't understand something? Then, there's the simple fact that I'm old enough to remember Roberto Clemente as a player, and you're still in high school, and you talk to me as if I have something to learn from you? Googie man 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
How else do you want me to address everybody in that context? Do you want me to name everybody else? What did you want me to say?
And my being in high school doesn't mean anything. Are you insinuating that my opinion means nothing because I wasn't alive when these guys were playing? Ksy92003(talk) 18:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
"You people" is commonly considered a term of condescension. I'm certainly not insinuating, implying, or stating openly, that you're opinion means nothing. I'm saying that you're wrong, both in the content and tone of your argument, and furthermore, in the real world, I'm simply not accustomed to high school students speaking to me as if I have something to learn. Anyway, I've seen your edits hear and there, and you appear to do a great job, committed to the ultimate goals, and you are definitely bright, and I didn't meant to pick a fight with you. Googie man 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
When I was writing that comment, I honestly really didn't know how better to phrase that. But I certainly didn't mean it in any sort of condescending tone. As far as Clemente, I wasn't trying to vouch for him or anything... don't take this the wrong way, but I've never really talked with you before, Googie man, and don't know you at all. But I can tell that you're a very intelligent person, and I didn't mean to try to "teach" you anything. I assume you already knew about Roberto Clemente. But I was only trying to prove that there are other circumstances and other things that would affect Hall of Fame voting.
For example, and this is a better example, Mark McGwire. He put up spectacular numbers, and is one of three players since Roger Maris to be the single-season home-run champion (Bonds-73, Sosa-66; Sosa hit 66 before McGwire hit 66). But because of the grand-jury testimony, voters haven't voted for him last year. The same thing with Bonds: voters said repeatedly that they won't vote for him because of what he's done for the sport of baseball by "tainting" it with the alleged steroid controversies. He will eventually be the all-time HR king when he passes Aaron in the coming weeks, is the all-time season-leading HR champion with 73, but because of the circumstances, a lot of voters have said they won't vote for him. I realize this is the opposite situation that I referenced to earlier, but all I'm saying is that there are other factors that one must consider when voting on the ballots. Like Bonds and McGwire, they might not be elected into the Hall of Fame because of the unusual circumstances. So some players have been denied election into the Hall of Fame because of non-baseball reasons (notable McGwire and Pete Rose), and other players have been accepted into the HoF because of non-baseball reasons. So to say that a player was elected into the Hall of Fame solely because of his numbers isn't necessarily 100% accurate. Therefore, the argument that a player's infobox colors should be based on better statistics with Team A, Team B, or Team C isn't necessarily 100% accurate. Ksy92003(talk) 23:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, much better. My apologies for the attitude. I've spent years on WP fighting vandals, trolls, and so many other forms of miscreants that I begin to assume that almost anyone I don't know is by default hostile. Now with that aside, you make a very good point. It's very true that considerations other than statistics determine if someone does or does not gain admission into the HoF, and you noted some fine examples. I'll back up what you say with the example of Ozzie Smith. Ozzie was a borderline case, not a shoe-in to the Hall by far, but made it mostly because he's a nice guy, people like him, and he can do a great backflip. However, as much as I hate to admit it, Pascack does have a valid point, in that the main consideration in the ideal world, should be what team is the most representative of a player being of HoF caliber. Furthermore, I'd agree with him by saying that the majority of RJ's HoF caliber career was spent with the Oakland A's. However, Pascack's behavior is very inconsistent with his arguments, as I've pointed out before in numerous ways and on numerous occasions. He's simply and clearly, very anti-Yankee, and that's not good enough reason to have RJ's colors changed on WP. Googie man 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason why people associate him with the Yankees rather than the A's, in my opinion, is because he had a better supporting cast when he was with the Yankees. He won more WS titles, but not because of him. It's because he had a better team in NY than in Oakland. Even though he may have done better with the A's, people associate him with the Yankees because of the players he played for. For here on WP, it's not fair to judge somebody's success on the success of a team. For example, Carl Crawford is an exceptional player and could be any team's best defensive player and lead-off man (except for Seattle, possibly). But because he plays for Tampa Bay, where he doesn't have a great supporting team around him, he's gonna be overlooked. People aren't gonna say he's a great player, let alone an exceptional player, because he doesn't play with Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Prince Fielder, or Barry Bonds. So it's very unfair to judge one man's success on who he played with. I don't know the exact names of the players he played with in NY, but I know they were a great team. You can't say Jackson had better success with the Yankees because he had better players on his team. It's unfair to judge success on that. Ksy92003(talk) 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
In theory, your point would be valid, but the facts are not correct. He won MORE titles with Oakland (3) than he did in New York (2) and I don't think anybody would argue that the 1977-78 Yankees were better than the 1972-74 A's, who are regularly argued among the greatest teams ever. Reggie was the centerpiece of both teams, but those A's teams were much better: Catfish Hunter (also on the 77-78 Yanks, but in his prime with the A's), Vida Blue, Rollie Fingers, Gene Tenace, Sal Bando, Ken Holtzman, Billy North, etc. Those A's were phenomenal - and Reggie won the AL MVP in 1973 - he never won an MVP Award with the Yankees. Pascack 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think your point is right in conjunction with the fact that the Yankees are arguably the most notorious organization in sports history. The Florida Marlins have won the World Series twice, but no one really remembers or cares about them. Anyway, do you think we've concluded at this point the colors should go back to the Yankees, and the article unprotected? Take care, 02:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Not only the Marlins, but in 2001 when the Diamondbacks won it and in 2002 when the Angels won it, they've barely been mentioned recently because in 2003, NY was in the WS, '04-Boston, '05-Chicago. They completely ignore the fact that the Angels were one of the best teams in the league since they won it in 2002 with one of the best bullpens and starting rotations. They have the 2nd-best record in MLB now, and they barely even get mentioned on ESPNews. Nobody really cares about them because they don't have controversy with their players and managers (Torre and Sheffield's accusation towards his racist actions), "Manny being Manny," or Ozzie Guillén and the "piranhas." The Angels have one of the best pitchers in the league in Kelvim Escobar. But he's not mentioned because Boston has Josh Beckett and Daisuke Matsuzaka. In my opinion, aside the fact I'm an Angel fan, Escobar and Lackey are a better 1-2 punch than Beckett and Matsuzaka. But because they play in Anaheim, not in a city that's within spitting distance of ESPN headquarters, the Angels don't get anywhere near the respect they deserve. The Yankees are struggling to be .500 when the Angels are making franchise history. It's not fair that the Angels get no coverage when they are one of the, if not the, best team this year and the Yankees get all the coverage because they stink this year. Pardon my language, but ESPN is treating the Angels, who again are making franchise history, like crap because they feel obligated to talk about the Yankees, who are barely at .500. Do you get what I'm saying? It's completely unfair. Do you think we care about how badly the Yankees are doing? No. Do they care about us at all? No, so "we'll talk about the .500 Yankees because we're 100 miles away from New York. We won't talk about a team that's 3,000 miles away from us, even though they're awesome." In fact, look at the top teams in the league: Boston, LA Angels, Detroit, Cleveland, San Diego, LA Dodgers, Seattle. The top 7 teams, and how many of them are over here on the West Coast? 4. And when you include the Giants because they have Bonds, that's 5 of 8 teams. And why do they never talk about them? Because they figure that people in New England don't care at all about us without even thinking that we don't care any about them. Just because ESPN is in New England doesn't mean they can completely ignore us. And I'm seriously thinking about writing them a letter or e-mailing them to let ESPN know that we over here are sick and tired of New York making headlines when teams over here (Seattle, LA Angels, San Diego) are some of the biggest stories in baseball. I can't even tell you how unfair it is to have these teams scrubbed because they don't care about us but assume we care about Boston as much as Red Sox fans do
Anyway, I still hold the opinion that all colors should be scrapped and done away with (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Players#Player infobox colors). But to be honest, I would vote for the A's colors, if I had to chose one in a life-or-death situation. My reasoning is this: He was the AL MVP in 1973, something Jackson never did with the Yankees, was a home-run champ twice with both teams but only once with the A's was he not a co-winner, and in the year he as the WS MVP in 1977, he didn't lead any statistical category. In '73, he led the AL in both HR and RBI, something Jackson wasn't able to do in '77 with NYY. In '73, he led the A's to a 6 game victory in the standings over the Royals, but the Yankees only had a 2.5 game lead over Baltimore and Boston in 1977, meaning he didn't do as much for the team to help give them a better standing. Based on those numbers, I would say he should have the A's colors and should've been inducted into the HoF as an Athletic. But again, I think we should remove all colors (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Players#Player infobox colors). Ksy92003(talk) 02:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Great points about the relative lack of fame of the Diamondbacks, and particularly the Angels. I used to live in LA, so the almost complete apathy towards the Angels outside of LA has always been a disappointment. Also I agree with your point about the A's colors to an extent, however I will never, ever take the side of a bad, abusive user of Wikipedia. Also, on another topic, what's with taking down my A'Rod picture? You would not believe the time and expense I go through for the labor-of-love for Wikipedia to have free baseball images. The replacement picture a) is NOT as good and b) does not belong to us. Please stop taking it down, OK? Thanks. Googie man 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, Reggie Jackson is a unique situation. The statistics I provided support him being referred to as an Athletic, but the Hall of Fame plaque shows otherwise (Yankees). It's hard to determine because normally a player will be inducted into the Hall of Fame as a member of whichever team he had the most success with. But one thing that I've wondered about since I provided those statistics: If Reggie Jackson resented the Athletics that much, and showed so much hostility towards the Oakland Athletics for the way they treated him, then why did he spend 1987, his last season before retiring, with the Athletics? After spending six seasons with the Angels, he went back to Oakland. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame six years later, in 1993. Yet he still chose to wear a Yankees hat on his plaque. Was there any resentment towards the Athletics prior to him being fired as a coach in 1991? In other words, was there any reason why he might've wanted to leave the A's and go to the Yankees? I see he got a 5-yr contract with the Yankees, but did he sign a contract with them because he was angry with the A's prior? Or was all that resentment and hostility towards the A's because he was fired as a coach in 1991?
I've got to ask this, Googie man: was I the "bad, abusive user" you were talking about?

Ksy92003(talk) 05:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not you at all. You're an ideal user of Wikipedia. Oakland is a notoriously difficult organization to work for, from what I've read over the years. At least Steinbrenner pays people well. Poor pay + poor treatment = extreme resentment. See you around the baseball articles Ksy92003. Googie man 14:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Roberto Clemente was not elected to the Hall of Fame due to his humanitarianism efforts, he was elected because he had 3,000 hits and was one of the top hitters of his era. He would have been elected to the HOF had he been a total ass, but the reason they skipped his 5 year waiting period was because he was killed due to his humanitarian efforts. But had he not been a Hall of Fame player, he would not be in the Hall of Fame. Regardless, I don't know what the hell that has to do with this issue. Your analogy to the .164 player is pretty bad, to tell you the truth. Even if you take out Reggie's 5 years with the Yankees, he still likely makes the HOF based off his years with Oakland and California alone. The guy was an MVP-caliber player in Oakland and led the 1972-74 A's dynasty (which was one of the most charismatic and infamous teams of all-time) to three straight World Championships. The fact that he played 11 years in Oakland to 5 in New York is just the tie-breaker. Pascack 13:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And Winfield played more years in NYC and put up better numbers, but you still insisted to keep Padre colors. Mghabmw 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He played about 70 more games for the Yanks than the Padres. Reggie played more than twice as many years for the A's as the Yankees.Pascack 15:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Carlton Fisk's colors on WP are of the Boston Red Sox, yet he spent much more time with the White Sox. If you don't change his colors as well, then it weakens your argument with regard to RJ, as your reasoning applies equally to Fisk. While you're at it you should change Sparky Anderson too, as he spent more years managing the Detroit Tigers, yet his colors (and rightly so) are of the Cincinnati Reds. Or for that matter, while you're at it, you should change Nolan Ryan's too. His colors are of the Texas Rangers (again, correctly so), however he spent more years with the Houston Astros and the California Angels. Googie man 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless, Winfield still played more games in New York, was a player for more years in New York, won more awards in New York. You just have an anti-Yankee biased. What's your explanation for changing Mattingly's colors? Mghabmw 16:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

$$Green$$ and $$Gold$$ are the colors of the Yankees. Or should be based on how they've won championships since the seventies.Kinston eagle 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

About my point on Roberto Clcmente, all I'm saying is that there are other factors to which team a player is inducted into the Hall of Fame as a member of that aren't limited to pure statistics. For example, Clemente was pusthumously inducted into the Hall of Fame, but his election came later than normal because the Baseball Writers Association of America voted on that. If Clemente had 125 HR and 2000 hits, he still would've been voted into the Hall of Fame because of a combination of those numbers and his humanitarian efforts.
Do you see what my point is? There are several unknown factors and certain circumstances that are put into consideration for the All-Star Voting besides just looking at a player's mere statistics. That's not something we can debate because none of us know why he was inducted as a Yankee. All we know is that he chose to wear a Yankees cap because of his relationship with the A's personnel. But who is to say that he wouldn't have been inducted as a Yankee anyway? Who is to say that he wouldn't have been inducted as an Athletic anyway? We could go back and forth with all these "What if...?"s, but we'll never know what would've happened if Reggie Jackson didn't come out and say that he chose to wear a Yankee cap because of his relationship with A's personnel. We'll never know if he would've been inducted as an Athletic or if he still would've been inducted as a Yankee.
Personally, I only knew of him as an Angel. But if I tried to prove that he should have Angels' colors in his infobox would be me trying to push others to my opinion. That's WP:NPOV. I mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Players#Player infobox colors. So go place your opinions on if we should have infobox colors or not. Ksy92003(talk) 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you all gone insane? Reggie Jackson is not an Athletic, Yankee or an Angel. He is a Baltimore Oriole.
There is only one way to settle this dilemma, we vote for the color of the infobox, Oakland Athletics or New York Yankees. Having A's colors on Reggie Jackson's page is the most worst thing ever. Everyone remembers Reggie as a Yankee, the three homeruns in the world series, the argument with Billy Martin, etc. Reggie had his greatest success as a Yankee. And lets face it nobody likes the Oakland A's #9 Reggie Jackson but everbody loves the New York Yankees #44 Reggie Jackson. Reggie will be the first to tell you that he is a Yankee.
Per WP:POLL:

Wikipedia is not a democracy nor a system of government... so we do not use voting as a process on [W]ikipedia itself...

So we can't use that as a means of determining the color. Ksy92003(talk) 00:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make an edit...

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

{{editprotected}} California Angels is linked to twice in this article: once in the infobox and once in the text. I would like to pipe this link to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, which is the page it is re-directed to. ––Ksy92003(talk) 00:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not generally necessary to fix such things; the redirects don't impair the server in any way. Once the page is unprotected, if you wish the fix it you will be able to. But there really is no need. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I will wait until after the page is unprotected. ––Ksy92003(talk) 04:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Argument for Oakland

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Reggie's career stats:

A's: 1,346 games, 756 runs, 1,228 hits, 269 HR, 776 RBI, 145 SB

Angels: 687 games, 331 runs, 557 hits, 123 HR, 374 RBI, 14 SB

Yankees: 653 games, 380 runs, 661 hits, 144 HR, 461 RBI, 41 SB

Orioles: 134 games, 84 runs, 138 hits, 27 HR, 91 RBI, 28 SB


World Series titles:

A's: 1972, 1973, 1974

Yankees: 1977, 1978


MVP Awards:

A's: 1973 Yankees: none


Top 5 MVP Finishes:

A's: 1969, 1973, 1974, 1975

Yankees: 1980


All-Star Appearances:

A's: 6

Yankees: 4

Angels: 1


Single-Season Career Highs:

AVG: .300 (1980 Yankees)

HR: 47 (1969 A's)

RBI: 118 (1969 A's)

SB: 17 (1970 A's)

OPS: 1.018 (1969 A's)


So he played more years for the A's, he won more championships for the A's, he put up greater career stats with the A's, he had his best statistical seasons with the A's, he made more All-Star teams with the A's, he won his only MVP Award with the A's. I know he has the whole "Mr. October" thing with the Yankees, but I really don't think that those 2 weeks in October overshadow an entire career where he accomplished his greatest overall success in Oakland. If he never won any championships in Oakland, then I could understand - but he won even more championships in Oakland than he did in New York and I don't think anyone would argue that the 1977-78 Yankees were better teams than the 1972-74 A's dynasty.

As for the Hall of Fame cap, let's set the record straight. The Hall of Fame has ALWAYS maintained the ultimate decision on the cap, but they never began enforcing it until the controversy with Tampa trying to buy a D-Rays cap on Wade Boggs' plaque. After that, the Hall changed their stance and began actively enforcing their power. There is a link in the article stating that Reggie was intending to wear an A's cap on his plaque but was upset at A's management when he was fired as a coach after the 1991 season. Sensing the opportunity, George Steinbrenner then brought Reggie back into the Yankees fold and Reggie subsequently went with the NY on his cap (it has also been revealed that Hall of Famers benefit monetarily with autographs and appearances when they are recognized with the Yankees). Anyway, had the Hall actively enforced their power back then, I honestly believe they would have overruled Reggie and put an A's cap on his plaque as they were just most representative of his total career. If you take away his 5 years in New York, he probably still makes the Hall based on the rest of his career. You can not say the same if you take his A's stats out of his career totals.

Another example of this would be looking at the more recent case involving Gary Carter, who was similar to Reggie in that he is probably best remembered for his 5-year stint in New York over a greater amount of time spent elsewhere (in this case, Montreal). However, when Carter elected to wear a Mets cap on his plaque, he was overruled and given an Expos cap based on his greater overall service time and aggregate statistics. In fact, I would say that Carter's case for notoriety with the Mets over the Expos is just as strong, if not stronger than Reggie's notoriety with the Yanks over the A's when you consider that Reggie won 3 titles for a dynasty in Oakland while Carter mainly toiled for mediocre Expos teams before joining the Mets.

As a result, when looking at the aggregate compilation of Reggie's 20-year career, I think that while he is remembered well as "Mr. October" with the Yankees, he played more October games with the A's, and that is where he also achieved his greatest overall success. Pascack 23:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

if you watched the show on YES Network today about Reggie Jackson today you could tell he liked playing with the Yankees better

I don't want to have to repeat myself like a broken record, but here I go: a player's success is not determined solely by mere statistics. Although his stats may have been better for the Athletics, as you admit he is much better known for the Yankees. He has a large reputation for what he did with the Yankees, and anybody could argue that. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. You are, I am, my neighbor's 4-year old granddaughter is, as well. Everybody has their own opinion, and my opinion is that a player's success isn't determined by mere statistics (see what I said above about Barry Bonds and Mark Mcgwire). Ksy92003(talk) 00:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

-You seem to be the only one who is going for the A's, but just saying Oakland? He played for the KC A's, too. Your argument goes against what you say about Dave Winfield. Is there a "No-Yankee" double standard here?

If you really do the math, with your numbers,
Reggie had .582 Runs per game for the Yankees; .562 for the A's.
As a Yankee, 1.01 hits per game; and 0.91 hits per game in the A's.
In pinstripes, .22051 HR per game; in green and yellow - .19985 HR/game
In New York - .706 RBI per game; with the elephants: .579 RBI/game
And alas, he did better in the A's with stolen bases with .10772 SB per game and only .06279 per game with the bombers.

He won 0.4 World Series per season with the Yankees (that's .003 per game)
He won 0.3 World Series per season with the A's (.002 per game)
He was an All-Star 80% of the seasons in NY, 60% with the A's.
(that's .006 per game NY; .004 per game A's)

Seems to me, he was more productive in pinstripes.
Mghabmw 02:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He has also only hit 2 HR's in the World Series for the A's. Once in '73 and another in '74. His Mr. October moniker is mostly remembered with 3 HR's in one game in the '77 World Series (he hit 5 total that series). He also hit 2 HR's for New York in the '78 World Series and 1 HR in the '81 World Series. That's 8 HRs in 3 World Series for NY. Only 2 HRs in 3 World Series for OAK.

You forgot to mention above that he was part of 3 AL championship seasons for NYY (with only 5 seasons). The pennant is kinda of an important thing in baseball...
Mghabmw 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And the first person to get their choice of cap rejected by the HoF was Gary Carter, who wanted to wear a Mets hat and they put him in as an Expo. It was NOT Wade Boggs, as you state above. Catfish Hunter was both an A and a Yankee, he and the Hall chose to wear no logo on his cap.
Mghabmw 13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not the HOF but Catfish Hunter who requested no logo on his HOF cap. As far as breaking out the statistics on a per game basis, that is all well and good (except the World Series titles per game, which is a ridiculous statistic) but again, I pose this subject - if you take out Reggie's 5 years with the Yankees, he may still be a borderline Hall of Famer based on the remainder of his career. If you take out his years with the A's - he is not a Hall of Famer. And not only did he win more titles with the A's, but he won his only MVP with the A's. 192.234.99.1 14:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When did you become a baseball writer? Mghabmw 14:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Colors debate

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion

I think the best resolution is that since there is a copyrighted photo of Reggie as a Yankee up front, we can show A's colors around it. That way, both teams are represented and everyone is happy. Hoosier95 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pascack, this username isn't fooling anyone. Mghabmw 22:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be good, but unfortunately that image is copyrighted and cannot be used on this article as it has no fair use rationale to support it being on this page. It has one for the Yankees article, but not for here. -- P.B. Pilhet 18:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's people like you that make a farce out of wikipedia. Mghabmw 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's people like you that make a farce out of wikipedia. Mghabmw 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that. I am sick of you people trying to force A's colors on someone who is famous as a Yankee more than as an A. And my idea if there is this much of a fucking dispute is to MERGE THE FUCKING COLORS! HAVE GREEN FOR OAKLAND AND DARK BLUE FOR THE YANKEES, ALONG WITH CORRESPONDING COLOR SCRIPTS (A LA GOLD ON GREEN, WHITE ON DARK BLUE!) I AM SICK OF THIS FUCKING DISPUTE! ALL OVER FUCKING COLORS! LOOK PEOPLE, DO COLORS REALLY MATTER IN THIS CASE? PASCAK AND JOEIDAHO SHOULD BE BLOCKED! YOU ANNOY US WHEN YOU DO THIS! WHERE IS YANKEES10 WHEN YOU NEED HIM? OH WAIT, YOU DROVE HIM OUT OF THIS PLACE, HE LAST EDITED ON JULY 3RD. GOOD JOB! YOU DROVE SOMEONE WHO SPECIALIZES IN THAT FIELD OUT. AN ADMINISTRATOR WILL BE NOTIFIED ABOUT YOUR ACTIONS, MARK MY WORDS SOXROCK 17:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

HERE:

Reggie Jackson
outfielder
Batted: Left
Threw: Left
debut
June 9, 1967, for the Kansas City Athletics
Last appearance
October 4, 1987, for the Oakland Athletics
Career statistics
AVG.262
HR563
RBI1702
Teams
Career highlights and awards
[[{{{hoflink}}}|Member of the {{{hoftype}}}]]
      [[{{{hoflink}}}|Baseball Hall of Fame]]      
Induction1993
Vote93.6% (first ballot)

Here here! That color scheme works. I'm just mad at myself for falling into his trap. Mghabmw 05:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

      • Tom Seaver retired as a Red Sox player. He's Mets colors. Nolan Ryan was on other teams for longer than the Rangers. However, he gets Rangers colors because he was remembered as a Ranger. Reggie was remembered as a Yankee. So, I say he gets Yankee color, not merge. 67.87.184.150 01:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Those weren't Rangers' colors on Nolan Ryan's page. Those are California Angels' colors. The Angels wore dark red and dark blue when he played with them. The Texas Rangers didn't wear those colors then; they were mainly all bright-red. Ksy92003(talk) 02:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow....To hell with all this, Make his info box black and white. --Rabbethan 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Please sign your entries. B&W are CHW colors. Mghabmw 18:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Who cares, at least it's not dark blue and green...

When Reggie went into the Hall what cap did he choose to wear? Reggie Jackson was inducted to the National Baseball Hall of Fame as a Yankee, and, therefore, that is what the colors of the template should represent. He is a Yankee legend, and, while he may have the same status in Oakland, he chose, above them, to honor his five years as a Yankee when he went to the Hall. Silent Wind of Doom 20:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved party with a pretty good knowledge of baseball, I think the Athletics' colors are most appropriate in this case. Jackson broke in with the A's and retired with the A's, spent the largest portion of his career with the A's, and won his MVP award with the A's. He also won three WS rings with the A's as opposed to two with the Yankees, and appeared in six All-Star games with the A's as opposed to four with the Yankees (he didn't play in '78). I don't think that the Yankees' colors are necessarily a bad choice; I just think the A's colors are a better one. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Infobox_colors. Mghabmw 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SOXROCK, "Merge the fucking colors". -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 03:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

hall of fame

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Did he go into the hall as a yankee?--Kingforaday1620 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Si, senor he was inducted as a Yankee

Colors in infobox

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I dont know about anybody else, but this two colors in the infobox looks terrible, we should change it to Yankees because hes in the Hall as a Yankee--Yankees10 17:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks horrible... hey, how about we make it bright pink so there are no controversies about Yankees or Athletics? Ksy92003(talk) 17:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to get sarcastic, It should be a no brainer to be Yankees colors considering hes in the Hall as a Yankee, not a A, yes he might have been better with the A's but hes not in the hall with them, Dave Winfield is in the hall as a Padre and has way better stats with the Yankees, so shouldnt the colors on his be combined, if they are combined on Reggies--Yankees10 17:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I know we aren't supposed to use straw polls, but that might be the best way to solve this. I mean there are perfectly valid arguments supporting both the Athletics and the Yankees, and i don't think discussion is going to provide anything else. So, I think we should simply use a plain vote to determine this.

This already spawned the greatest edit war in wikipedia history - there is no reason to revisit this. The compromise with both colors was accepted and seemed to have quelled the problems. We should leave as is. 192.234.99.1 20:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Hall of Fame argument, you have to keep in mind that when Reggie was inducted, the HOF was not actively enforcing their control over the cap debate. Reggie chose to wear a Yankee cap after he was angry about being fired by the A's as hitting coach after the 1991 season. Had the Hall enforced control back then, they likely would have overruled Reggie's choice since he played more years and had better stats with Oakland. It is the same case as Gary Carter, who is best remembered for his 5 years in New York, but played more years with better stats in Montreal. Like Reggie, Carter chose to wear NY on his cap (for the Mets); however, Carter's induction was after the furor caused from Dave Winfield and Wade Boggs, who were accused of selling the right to their cap (Boggs reportedly was planning to wear a Tampa hat after the D-Rays tried to pay him off). As a result, the Hall overruled Carter and forced him to wear an Expos cap. It is likely that had the Hall enforced the same rules in 1993 that they used in 2005, that Reggie would have been forced to wear an A's cap. So I don't think you can just go straight off the HOF cap argument. Pascack 20:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt matter that he would have had a A's cap, the whole point is he DIDNT have the A's he had the Yankees cap--Yankees10 21:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dave Winfield had better stats and more years in New York. He chose San Diego. Steinbrenner had insulted him with Mr. May and paying money for dirt. The Hall said nothing, he wears a Padres cap. Now if you're for Reggie having A's colors for what you said above, you MUST be for Dave having Yankee colors. Mghabmw 11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox colors

Latest comment: 17 years ago63 comments27 people in discussion

Would anybody seriously object to the colors being changed to the Yankees colors? I mean there's a pretty strong opinion towards the Yankees, based on the vote. By that, I would say that most of the people here feel that Yankees colors are more appropriate. If nobody has a serious objection, then may I change the colors? Ksy92003(talk) 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a good number of people would "seriously object" to the colors being changed to Yankees colors, and with good reason. That's the reason this discussion has been going on for so long.--Rabbethan 21:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Although we've had all this discussion, the "vote" that we had not too long ago had 15-3 in favor of the Yankees (that's 4 people, although one of them was suspicious). That's an 83.3% majority in favor of the Yankees. I'd say that's rather convincing. Ksy92003(talk) 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that voting was not the proper way to decide this. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. --Rabbethan 21:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. There were long discussions earlier about this debate, and the vote I only started because there were too many posts in the discussion for consensus that it was hard to tell what opinions everybody had. The discussions greatly favored the Yankees, but it was far too difficult to tell because everybody was saying their opinions and it was so hard to tell who thought that it should be the Yankees or the Athletics or anybody else. The poll I opened because it was hard to understand all that, and all the reasons for their vote are above in the discussions, but it's hard to find. This strongly shows that the consensus favors the Yankees. Ksy92003(talk) 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont vote for Reggie Jackson because I'm a Yankee fan I am voting for him because he is in the hall of fame as a Yankee and there for should have Yankees colors--Yankees10 22:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be in the best interests of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball to establish a policy on the subject of retired players' infoboxes. It seems least controversial to have no colors at all or maybe red, white and blue since those are the colors of MLB. The only arguments I have heard against this are that it doesn't look good. Well, encyclopedias don't need to be pretty, they need to impart information. If half the people who have been fighting over Reggie Jackson, had only spent half their energy on improving the article instead of fighting over the stupid infobox, it might actually have more than four references. Pretty pathetic for a hall of fame player who has probably had more written about him than everybody but Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. If you people truly care about Reggie, can you please redirect your energies to something that actually improves the content of the article? Kinston eagle 23:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's my opinion that all retired MLB players with infoboxes should use a standard set of colors. What they are does not matter. X96lee15 03:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Who's the one who got so citation happy? That just makes the article look like such a mess. Some of them probably don't even need citations. It's hard to read the article with a [citation needed] after every sentence...why not just add a "needs refs/sources" banner at the top, and lighten up on all of those tags? FamicomJL 07:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. Would you believe that [citation needed] was in the article 91 times? Way too much. For the record, those were all added by Kinston eagle (talk · contribs) if you wish to talk with him/her about this. Here is the edit: ([9]). Ksy92003(talk) 07:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
My humblest apologies. You see, some of us silly people like to cite sources in order to provide verifiability. Placing citation tags in an article is a way that we who reference articles like to keep a checklist of facts that still need to be cited. It also lets others know what specific things are being looked for in case they want to help. I didn't realize that the main goal of Project Baseball was to make articles look pretty. I should have realized that after the endless arguments over colors in infoboxes. It sure looks a lot nicer now that it has pretty colors and none of those annoying citation tags to let us know where we can improve the content. Who cares about the content anyway? Kinston eagle 12:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's okay... I'm not sure how much of that comment was sarcasm, but either way, when there are 91 statements that need to be verified, it seems far too excessive to point each and every single one of them out. Just placing the tag at the top and removing all the [citation needed] tags in the article improves the flow and readability of the article. I don't disagree about the adding of the [citation needed] in the sense that there was a lot that needed to be sourced, but the excessive notes make it too hard to read. I feel that the way I changed it to, with the tag at the top and the [citation needed] removed, is a lot easier and just as helpful. Ksy92003(talk) 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for missing the point, kinston eagle. The fact that you have to add NINETY ONE of them to the article is foolish and ridiculous. Calm down on the citations. Being a sarcastic jerk is going to help out your case any better. I know about citations and citing sources, but adding near 100 of those tags is an eyesore to a reader who DOESN'T edit wikipedia, and an eyesore to one who does, and just wants to know more information about Reggie. I don't care for baseball much, I just wanted to read up about Reggie because I want to know info about how he left the Yankees. Hell, I couldn't give two turds about the stupid infobox debate that you referenced. The almost 100 citation tags made the article look like a mess and impossible to read. And I don't mean it in a "pretty" sense. So please, keep a cool head, alright? FamicomJL 22:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Three months later and not one new citation added. The vague unspecific tag at the top of the page is really working wonders for the improvement of this article. It still looks pretty though. Kinston eagle (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Colors Back

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

When are we gonna put the colors back on this infobox, it looks like crap without them.--Yankees10 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should. This has been a reasonable compromise and inserting the colors only causes massive edit wars. Jjj222 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok--Yankees10 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictrue edit war

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I deleted jj picture as it's unsourced, no evidence that it was his picture, (too few bytes, seem like it been taken out of the internet somewhere) Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's sort out the picture's source before we get all edit-happy. Brad E. Williams 03:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Its time to put the colors Back

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

I think we can put the colors back on the infobox, because the main person who kept changing the colors seems to no longer edit wikipedia.--Yankees10 16:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It was more than just one person who wanted A's colors. Neutral was the compromise by consensus. You shouldn't unilaterally impose your will over the consensus. Kinston eagle 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a dog in this fight, albeit a small one. Personally I believe the rule on Wikipedia should be this - 1) For all Hall of Famers, their infobox colors should be the same as the team in which they were inducted. 2) For any other retired player, the colors should be of the team for which they were most known. Admittedly this is extremely subjective in some cases, but hopefully the consensus of the community will determine the best answer. In the case of Reggie Jackson the infobox colors may have initiated the single largest edit war in the hitory of WP. It's simply too soon to have the colors back. Furthermore, it may be best to have neutral colors on all player's infoboxes due to the edit warring potential. Googie man 17:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ok 4 people, including a person that was suspicious of being a sockpuppet, against the 15 or so people that wanted Yankees colors, and the only reason you want neutral colors is because you wanted A's colors before, my opinion is that we should wait until people keep changing it to A's colors to put it back to nuetral, and this may not even happen--Yankees10 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this to me? If so I don't understand. Jackson went into the HoF as a Yankee, and I think that all players in the HoF should have the colors of those teams on their infobox, including Jackson. However, this instigated a months long edit war, and I think that having some article stability and community consensus trump infobox colors, which are a very new convention on WP anyway. Googie man 18:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It was basically only one person who was the main reason why there was such an edit war, and he is gone, in my opinion more people wanted Yankees colors, therefore there should be Yankees colors--Yankees10 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That user definitely isn't gone. We'll see what happens. Googie man 23:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

well I know hes not gone for sure, but he hasnt edited since August--Yankees10 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

thats what I think, there should be colors--Rockies17 03:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but I think there needs to be a guideline (through discussion at Wikiproject Basbell?) that can be applied evenly to all retired players. Whether it's neutral colors, or colors of team they spent the most seasons with, or color they played the most games with, etc. Unless this happens, there's the potential for more of these never ending arguments around other players. Bjewiki 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Players in the Hall of Fame should have the same colors of the team in which they were indcuted to the HoF. 2) For every other player, they colors should represent the team that was most emblematic of their career success. In borderline cases, which there are certainly many, the decision should be left to community consensus. Googie man 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason that I don't completely agree with the HOF cap argument is that the criteria for choosing the cap is different today than it was in the early 1990's when Reggie was inducted. While the Hall always maintained the final say on the cap, they didn't begin actively enforcing their opinion until recent years, after the controversies surrounding Dave Winfield and Wade Boggs. Prior to that, the Hall basically went with whatever the player chose, whether or not it was most reflective of their career. Reggie was a prime example of this - he is remembered well for the 1977 World Series with the Yankees, but he played more years and had better career numbers (not to mention more WS titles as well) in Oakland. The Hall vetoed Gary Carter's attempt to wear a Mets hat (where he was probably better remembered with the '86 Mets) because he played the majority of his career in Montreal. Had the Hall enforced the same criteria when Reggie was inducted, they likely would have forced him in with an A's cap. In fact, Reggie has stated that he initially intended to wear an A's cap on his plaque but went with the Yankees after a falling-out with A's management (they fired him as hitting coach in '91) and a reconciliation with George Steinbrenner. That is just my two cents, and I am going to stay above the fray here and I will no longer make any edits on the main page with regard to colors; however, I think neutral colors are most appropriate in the case of Reggie. Jjj222 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

and yes Yankees10, I am still here. Just trying to repair my rep - that's all.Jjj222 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Reggie should have Yankees colors and I'll tell you why, not only was he inducted into the hall of fame wearing a Yankee hat, but he currently does work for the New York Yankees organization as a special advisor, I believe. He is at the staduim all the time helping the current Yankee players. So being that he technecally is apart of Yankees organization, he should have Yankee colors.TheNextOne 01:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It should stay the way that it is right now, and all other retired players should be "neutralized" as well, to avoid further controversy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reggie and Game Six of the 1977 World Series

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I changed the description of Reggie's first home run in Game Six of the 1977 World Series from a "high arcing shot" to a "line drive" which is what it was. I know because I was at that Game, seated in the upper deck along the right field foul line. Reggie's first two home runs were carbon copies of each other. It was his third home run that was hit high and far. I also made it clear that because of his home run off Don Sutton in his last at bat in Game 5, Reggie's three home runs in Game Six meant that he had hit four home runs on four consecutive swings of the bat against four different Dodger pitchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.2.214 (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Reggie Jackson/Comments (baseball), and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* You guys need to stop disputing the colors. It's not that important
  • Dispute resolved! Pascack and his socks were banned and a color scheme was agreed upon, merging the Yanks darkblue/white with the A's green/gold. This page can be unprotected

Last edited at 18:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reggie_Jackson/Archive_1&oldid=1142535910"