Talk:Kansas City T-Bones

From BR Bullpen

It has taken me a year and a half to notice the change (and I've made a couple of changes to the page myself since it happened), but could someone please explain why the yearly standings of this team have retroactively removed the divisional standings? As is now written, the two leagues the T-Bones played in never had divisional play, nor ever played a split season.

The T-Bones finished fifth in the Central Division of the AA last year, but they are shown in a tie for 8th in the overall league, as if the league had no divisional play. They finished fourth and first, respectively in the first and second halves of the five-team South Division in 2004, but the current page shows them finishing 7th (in the 10-team league) and then losing in the playoffs. This is inaccurate and misrepresents the dynamics of the pennant races in which the team was involved. Unless there was a specific and justifiable reason to delete divisional references (and an independent reference source that shows single-division, full-season standings), I propose reverting the yearly standings to reflect divisional and split season finishes.

--Couillaud 23:52, 20 December 2011 (EST)

We have had this discussion before on minor league results. Because there are a variety of seasonal and divisional formats in use in the minor leagues, and leagues themselves change these regularly, we are using as a standard for every minor league team the overall yearly record and the order of finish among all teams in the league. For the postseason, we use the terms "League Champs" for the team that wins the playoffs, "Lost League Finals" for their opponents in the finals, and "Lost in 1st round" or "Lost in 2nd round" for teams that make the postseason but bow out before the final round. Other terms can be used in the case of an unorthodox postseason format if necessary. The level of detail you want to insert can be inputed in the yearly result on the league pages (see for example the yearly results for the Can-Am Association) where the subtleties of divisions and halves can be reflected. Such results tables can be added for leagues where they do not yet exist. --Philippe 06:16, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Those details can also be put on the text of a team's page - ex. Matamoros (MCL) - --Mischa 11:25, 21 December 2011 (EST)

I've always been a proponent of more information is better, but then I've also argued that different minor leagues with the same name (like the Northern League) should have their own separate pages. I was not included in the discussion you mention, and would have argued strongly against the decision that was made. We provide less information and less accurate information in the name of convenience, and makes this site less authoritative a source.

What this page tells me is that the T-Bones finished 7th in the league in 2004 and making the playoffs. It does not tell me how. I think this is a step down in the amount of information provided. And yes, it COULD have been added to the NoL and AA as it is in the Can-Am, but it WASN'T added, and information that HAD been available on this page was removed. This is a net negative.

Minor leagues are not my main interest, and this page probably sees the lion's share of my work regarding the minors, so I'll not dispute it further, but I wish to be on record that I believe that this was a bad choice. When this web site by conscious choice provides a weaker and less informative page than Wikipedia does, I feel something is definitely wrong. -- Couillaud 14:41, 21 December 2011 (EST)

There is always a possibility of providing more information without denaturing a template that is meant to be comparable across the entire minor leagues. That template is not meant to be the sole and last word on a team's season, or to be inclusive of everything that weant down that year. It's a snapshot of what happened, giving some very basic information: what years did the team play, what was its record, where did it finish in the league standings, who managed the team, and how did it do in the postseason. There can be a final column added for notes if the team failed to finish the season or moved partway through it, but that is a very rare occurrence. It is alway possible to add year-by-year information for each team, with details such as the ones you want to highlight; it fits under the "team history" section, or even a separate section or sub-section if need be. And, by the way, wikipedia is all over the map, and generally out of date in spite of the fancy presentation and plethora of end notes; as a reference source for the minor leagues, it's almost useless. Our pages, while a lot less fancy, are much more accurate and useful. --Philippe 03:15, 22 December 2011 (EST)

"Our pages, while a lot less fancy, are much more accurate and useful."

Wow. Talk about damning with faint praise. "We're not all that accurate, but at least we're more accurate overall than Wikipedia." Not in this situation, bro.

"snapshot of what happened . . . where did it finish in the league standings"

My problem is that it is NOT a snapshot of what happened. It says the team finished in a tie for eighth place, and suggests that it was in a 14-team, one-division league.

"denaturing a template that is meant to be comparable across the entire minor leagues"

"Meant" to be "comparable"? The Northern League went from 10 to 12 to 8 to 6 to 8 teams and 3-, 2-, and 1-division setups over a nine-year period before disbanding; it can't be compared to itself, much less be put into a template that makes it comparable to others. I question the need for such a thing. I understand that many different minor leagues have many different divisional and playoff formats, but I do not feel that this is a legitimate excuse for presenting standings in a format that NEVER EXISTED at that time (this particular "template" is accurate only for the 2008-2010 seasons, and misrepresents what happened in the other six seasons), nor a satisfactory solution to a perceived problem. Defending it by criticizing another site is IMO not a defense. I did not think that being "better than Wikipedia" was the goal here; I thought it was to present baseball history and statistics as accurately as possible.

That said, this is not really worth a fight. I'm not going to try to change things, but I wanted my dissent on record, and I want it understood that the way that such a fundamental change was decided upon and effected makes me concerned about my continued contributions to BRB. -- Couillaud

I certainly appreciate your position. I would like to say that one disagreement shouldn't drive someone from contributing to the site. If so, I would have been gone from here long ago, without having given a lot to the baseball research world. I think your work here has been very valuable and it would be sad to see no more of it. - --Mischa 20:10, 17 January 2012 (EST)