Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Players)
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Baseball and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | WikiProject Baseball was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 April 2010. |
| WikiProject Baseball was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 20 August 2014. |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Cumulative win-loss record for head-to-head rivals
[edit]I have started a discussion at Talk:Major League Baseball rivalries#Relevance of head-to-head win-loss records regarding a recent set of changes that introduced the cumulative head-to-head win-loss records for pairs of rivals, over the entire history of the teams. Feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I had previously added them to each section due to it already existing on the Angels-Athletics section, and I was trying to keep some consistency from section to section, though I'm indifferent regarding keeping or removing the head-to-head records. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 16:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- To briefly summarize what I said on the Major League Baseball rivalries talk page, I think fans talk about pennant races and playoff series wins when they talk about rivalries. I don't think cumulative head-to-head win-loss records for the regular season and for the playoffs really captures what fans are thinking about with rivalries, even if these are numbers that broadcasters like to trot out. Thus I think the records should be removed from the rivalries article. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Adding (or removing?) stats to League leaders sections in season pages
[edit]Currently, hitting and pitching leaders tables each have 6 stats each. I'm of the belief that OPS should be added to hitting leaders and less so adamant that WHIP be added to pitching leaders. Why OPS? It seems that most of the league at this point focuses more on OPS than AVG. Why WHIP? Though not as focused on compared to ERA, it portrays a pitchers effectiveness against batters and is typically on even smaller pitching stats tables (such as CBS Sports, which for pitching stats, shows Wins, ERA, Saves, Strikeouts, and WHIP). Plus, adding WHIP would keep both hitting and pitching leaders to show 7 stats each.
I know I read somewhere in the talk page someone had suggested reducing the stats listed. I personally disagree but I wanted to mention it.
Regarding an addition or removal, I'm willing to go through all 124 season pages to update them. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Creating pages for Milwaukee Braves, Kansas City Athletics, and Washington Senators (1961–1971)
[edit]In my sandbox, I have created pages for the Milwaukee Braves, Kansas City Athletics, and Washington Senators (1961–1971). I'd like to copy/paste the content to the redirect pages or move the sandbox page itself to proper articles (with admin support, as I cannot do that myself), but I wanted input from other WikiProject Baseball users before doing any sort of implementation. I've modeled these pages mostly after the Boston Braves article, but most mentioned below follow a similar format.
Mind you, there is heavy precedent for having separate pages for the same franchise but of different locations, such as:
- Baltimore Orioles with franchise pages Milwaukee Brewers (1894–1901) and St. Louis Browns
- Atlanta Braves with franchise page Boston Braves
- Oakland Athletics with franchise page Philadelphia Athletics
- San Francisco Giants with franchise page New York Giants (baseball)
- Los Angeles Dodgers with franchise page Brooklyn Dodgers
- Minnesota Twins with franchise page Washington Senators (1901–1960)
- Milwaukee Brewers with franchise page Seattle Pilots
- Washington Nationals with franchise page Montreal Expos
Some of these teams existed longer in previous locations (Braves, Giants, Dodgers, Expos) and some existed for only one season (Seattle Pilots).
These three pages would simply complete the set of prior locations of current MLB franchises. Much of the content is largely taken from existing articles (as are stated at the top of each of the three sandbox articles at the moment), but each have been expanded with Infoboxes, and "Legacy", "Notable [Team Name players]", "Uniforms", and "List of [Team Name] seasons" sections. Some areas of the articles have been expanded within the already existing-from-other-articles sections. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the Milwaukee Braves I believe the History of the Atlanta Braves article is the best place for covering the franchise history in Milwaukee, especially since the franchise wasn't in Milwaukee for very long. This probably opens up a can of worms but the Boston Braves article pretty much covers the exact same information that's already included in the Atlanta Braves article what's left could be put in the "History of..." article as well. Nemov (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I believe there already was an RFC held a few years ago, on how to handle relocated MLB franchises. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, here's the RFC. Nemov (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- A 2022 request for comments discussion resulted in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) § North American sports teams being modified to state that if there is sufficient content, keep an article at the old franchise name. Otherwise, the old name is redirected to either the appropriate section in the new franchise article or the "History of new franchise" article. So it's up to editorial judgement if these former franchises have enough content for an independent article. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm definitely new to the discussion history regarding this topic, but my understanding from reading through the past discussions on this talk page, mainly Archive 41 from 2015 and Archive 47 from 2022 (in which the next section was to the RfC related to sports team names), I get the sense that the initial solution to this reoccurring question was to split each teams history in a previous location to its own (for example) "History of the Boston Braves" page, though in some cases, there weren't any splits (such as with the Milwaukee Braves, as the history was not long/detailed enough to warrant its own page).
- Then, that decade-ish long consensus had the rug swept out from underneath when the RfC on naming conventions took all of these dedicated "History of [FORMER LOCATION TEAM NAME]" articles and removed the "History of", making it so the 9 of the 12 previous-locations-of-current-franchise pages (excluding the three team iterations that sparked this section) now all had separate articles, when before that wasn't the case. The "history of..." seemed to be a compromise between keeping all team history in the current franchise "History of..." pages and simply breaking off each previous-locations-of-current-franchise pages.
- I'm coming into this only now (and just read the archives while typing this comment). I made these three sandbox pages because my thinking was "well if these 9 articles mentioned above can exist, why not the other 3? Especially considering a page like Seattle Pilots only covers one season".
- Personally, I'm of the belief that while the franchises are technically the same, I'd argue simply being in different cities (especially of considerable distance as Boston>Milwaukee>Atlanta or Philadelphia>Kansas City>Oakland) is enough to warrant their own articles (again, see Seattle Pilots). For example, the Milwaukee Brewers and Philadelphia Phillies celebrate other franchises' histories, with the Milwaukee Braves Wall of Honor and Philadelphia Phillies Wall of Fame (which includes many Philadelphia Athletics players), respectively. There's a history of baseball in that location. Though of course, at the same time, these histories are celebrated by the Atlanta Braves and Oakland Athletics franchises, respectively. These two simultaneous views on how to look at these now-relocated teams, to me, warrants their own articles.
- Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 18:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Based on the RFC, Milwaukee squarely falls into the "not enough history to justify an article" camp. The Atlanta Braves and History of the Atlanta Braves covers that period well. Nemov (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think there should be enough history in thirteen seasons to have a separate article. If editors like Spesh531 are interested in developing more coverage of the Milwaukee Braves, then I think it's reasonable to have a standalone article. (If there is no interest at the moment in expanding coverage, then I'm less opinionated about spinning out the Milwaukee history.) isaacl (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I too fail to see how one season of the Seattle Pilots and eight seasons in the late 1800s of the early-era Milwaukee Brewers (1894–1901) are both worthy of articles, but thirteen seasons of the Milwaukee Braves, thirteen seasons of the Kansas City Athletics, and eleven seasons of the Washington Senators (1961–1971) somehow are not. If editors are eager and willing to work on developing articles for those three teams, I say go ahead and do it. After all, the history of those three franchises in those three cities would most definitely meet WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree if new content laser focused on the Milwaukee Braves is created I wouldn't object. However, a new article simply covering the same exact content found elsewhere it's not necessary. The Boston Braves article could be improved a lot in this regard. Nemov (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I too fail to see how one season of the Seattle Pilots and eight seasons in the late 1800s of the early-era Milwaukee Brewers (1894–1901) are both worthy of articles, but thirteen seasons of the Milwaukee Braves, thirteen seasons of the Kansas City Athletics, and eleven seasons of the Washington Senators (1961–1971) somehow are not. If editors are eager and willing to work on developing articles for those three teams, I say go ahead and do it. After all, the history of those three franchises in those three cities would most definitely meet WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think there should be enough history in thirteen seasons to have a separate article. If editors like Spesh531 are interested in developing more coverage of the Milwaukee Braves, then I think it's reasonable to have a standalone article. (If there is no interest at the moment in expanding coverage, then I'm less opinionated about spinning out the Milwaukee history.) isaacl (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Based on the RFC, Milwaukee squarely falls into the "not enough history to justify an article" camp. The Atlanta Braves and History of the Atlanta Braves covers that period well. Nemov (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The RfC didn't address whether or not an article should exist -- it only covered if it did exist what the title should be. Basically, you shouldn't have a "History of the Brooklyn Dodgers" unless you first have a "Brooklyn Dodgers" article. IMO, Spesh531 could have created these articles per WP:BRD. I always figured someone would eventually fill in the blanks and turn the redirects into articles one of these days.
It looks like the 3 redirects all meet the "minor history" requirement so you can probably tag all 3 with {{Db-g6}} and an admin can complete the page move. (You can't copy/paste your Milwaukee article because more than one user has edited the page.) Also since you copied content from the old History article, be sure to give proper attribution by putting {{copied}} on the talk pages (see Talk:St. Louis Stars (baseball) & Talk:St. Louis Stars (1937) for {{copied}} examples). Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Request for Comment on shading of MLB rivalry tables
[edit] |
|
In late 2023 and early 2024, User:Spesh531 modified rivalry tables by adding team colors to home/away results columns and overall series columns of the table. Previously, only the individual season series column was shaded After some WP:BRD edits today, I believe it should be examined by the the Baseball wikiproject to gain some consensus moving forward. Below is an excerpt from the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page, in two versions. Frank Anchor 19:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Version 1
[edit]| 2021 | Red Sox | 10–9 | Yankees, 5–4 | Red Sox, 6–4 | Yankees 1233–1018–14 |
Red Sox win 8 straight meetings (September 2020 to July 2021) immediately following Yankees' 12-game winning streak in the series. |
| 2021 ALWC | Red Sox | 1–0 | — | Red Sox, 1–0 | Yankees 1233–1019–14 |
First meeting in the Wild Card Game since the round was added in 2012. |
| 2022 | Yankees | 13–6 | Yankees, 8–2 | Yankees, 5–4 | Yankees 1246–1025–14 |
|
| 2023 | Red Sox | 9–4 | Red Sox, 5–1 | Red Sox, 4–3 | Yankees 1250–1034–14 |
Schedule structure modified this season to allow every team to play one series against every interleague team. This reduced the number of meetings from 19 to 13 per season. |
| 2024 | Red Sox | 4–2 | Red Sox, 2–1 | Tie, 3–3 | Yankees 1254–1039–14 |
Four games remaining in New York. |
Version 2
[edit]| 2021 | Red Sox | 10–9 | Yankees, 5–4 | Red Sox, 6–4 | Yankees 1233–1018–14 |
Red Sox win 8 straight meetings (September 2020 to July 2021) immediately following Yankees' 12-game winning streak in the series. |
| 2021 ALWC | Red Sox | 1–0 | — | Red Sox, 1–0 | Yankees 1233–1019–14 |
First meeting in the Wild Card Game since the round was added in 2012. |
| 2022 | Yankees | 13–6 | Yankees, 8–2 | Yankees, 5–4 | Yankees 1246–1025–14 |
|
| 2023 | Red Sox | 9–4 | Red Sox, 5–1 | Red Sox, 4–3 | Yankees 1250–1034–14 |
Schedule structure modified this season to allow every team to play one series against every interleague team. This reduced the number of meetings from 19 to 13 per season. |
| 2024 | Red Sox | 4–2 | Red Sox, 2–1 | Tie, 3–3 | Yankees 1254–1039–14 |
Four games remaining in New York. |
Discussion
[edit]- I support Version 2 as nominator. The first version uses TOO MUCH color. Only having the individual season series shaded allow it to better "stand out" since it is more relevant information (most of the tables are in a section entitled "Season-by-season results" or similar). Whichever team won more games at home is in a given year trivial, as is who led an ongoing series after each year (the overall series is summarized at the end of each table, using team colors). Frank Anchor 19:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I support Version 1, as the editor referenced in the intial RfC in question here. First off, there was no consensus prior to my edits of adding this table to all rivalry pages. Some tables existed as Mets/Phillies (Version 1), while some existed as Yankees/Red Sox (Version 2) (which in this case, didn't even feature an 'Overall series' column). Both linked versions are prior to me ever editing either page (save for a single minor edit in 2022 where I changed the "i" in the last names of Joely Rodriguez and Edwin Diaz to "í" on the Mets/Phillies page). By not shading the (for this example) 'at New York', 'at Boston', or 'Overall series' columns, at least to me, the information becomes noise. IMO, everything colored in Version 1 is relevant to the season-by-season results. It's information that becomes less accessible if colorless. Also, the section of the article isn't called "Season series results", it's "Season-by-season results", so there isn't anything explicit about the table that says "only Season series results is relevant".Here are the tables with the column headers, as above examples have no context.
| Yankees vs. Red Sox Season-by-Season Results | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020s (Yankees, 39–32) (with each column colored)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2020s (Yankees, 39–32) (with only season series columns colored)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Keeping in mind that each collapsible section of the table is a decade, and in the case of this series, there are 13 sections of 10 seasons each, it's hard to parse through the results of the series specifically in NY or in Boston year-to-year if they are entirely colorless/shaded gray. It's impossible to see trends of how, say, the Yankees performed at Fenway Park from year-to-year. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to look at the headers of the table and understand what's happening in each column. As arguably the most important information, the 'Season series' columns are immediately to the right of the 'Season' column. It doesn't get lost because other columns to the right are colored; there's no separation between the season year and season result. The ability to see the information isn't reduced. The focus is already on the 'Season series' by virtue of where it is in the table.
- Regarding the idea that this is WP:TRIVIA: I want to note that showing the home and overall column data is not in question here. Simply the coloring of said information is. I'm not sure how coloring suddenly makes the information WP:TRIVIA. If it is trivia, then remove the 'at New York', 'at Boston', and 'Overall series' columns completely (which I'm not in favor of). The 'Overall series' column shows legitimate historical context to the history of the rivalry and having said information colorless in an expansive table of colorless information, again, renders it as noise. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The coloring is supposed to highlight the main component of the table, which is “season-by-season results” as is the title of the section for many of these charts. The home/away games and the overall series to that point are secondary information and do not need to be as prominently displayed. I would not be opposed to removing this home/away information as trivia, but having it displayed less prominently is acceptable as well. Thank you for adding the column headers on the tables. Not including them was an oversight on my part. Frank Anchor 22:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't support using any custom background cell colour. It's long been an accessibility issue, and its legibility needs to be tested with all themes and reading modes. Plus I don't feel it has sufficient utility in the current format. A separate table with just indicators for the season outcome and no text (beyond a single letter to distinguish between the two victors) would be able to better illustrate the trends over the entire history in a more compact format. isaacl (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Placement of Wildcard races
[edit]Since the League/Division standings are no longer side-by-side, but rather one under the other. Where are we going to locate the wildcard races, once it turns September? GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have two ideas. It should be noted that the standings are side-by-side, but only when the screen resolution is wide enough. If they're not, then the National League wraps around to be below the American League. There are 2 ways we can do this. Either have it so the AL Division standings & AL Wild Card standings wrap together (FORMAT 1), or to have the Wild Card standings entirely below both AL & NL Division standings (FORMAT 2).
- FORMAT 1
American League
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baltimore Orioles | 69 | 48 | .590 | — | 30–24 | 39–24 |
| New York Yankees | 68 | 48 | .586 | ½ | 34–26 | 34–22 |
| Boston Red Sox | 61 | 53 | .535 | 6½ | 27–29 | 34–24 |
| Tampa Bay Rays | 58 | 57 | .504 | 10 | 30–30 | 28–27 |
| Toronto Blue Jays | 54 | 62 | .466 | 14½ | 29–29 | 25–33 |
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleveland Guardians | 67 | 49 | .578 | — | 35–19 | 32–30 |
| Minnesota Twins | 65 | 50 | .565 | 1½ | 34–21 | 31–29 |
| Kansas City Royals | 64 | 53 | .547 | 3½ | 37–25 | 27–28 |
| Detroit Tigers | 55 | 61 | .474 | 12 | 26–31 | 29–30 |
| Chicago White Sox | 28 | 90 | .237 | 40 | 17–41 | 11–49 |
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Houston Astros | 60 | 55 | .522 | — | 32–26 | 28–29 |
| Seattle Mariners | 60 | 56 | .517 | ½ | 34–26 | 26–30 |
| Texas Rangers | 54 | 61 | .470 | 6 | 31–27 | 23–34 |
| Los Angeles Angels | 51 | 65 | .440 | 9½ | 26–35 | 25–30 |
| Oakland Athletics | 48 | 69 | .410 | 13 | 29–30 | 19–39 |
American League Wild Card
| Team | W | L | Pct. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baltimore Orioles | 69 | 48 | .590 |
| Cleveland Guardians | 67 | 49 | .578 |
| Houston Astros | 60 | 55 | .522 |
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York Yankees | 68 | 48 | .586 | +4½ |
| Minnesota Twins | 65 | 50 | .565 | +2 |
| Kansas City Royals | 64 | 53 | .547 | — |
| Boston Red Sox | 61 | 53 | .535 | 1½ |
| Seattle Mariners | 60 | 56 | .517 | 3½ |
| Tampa Bay Rays | 58 | 57 | .504 | 5 |
| Detroit Tigers | 55 | 61 | .474 | 8½ |
| Texas Rangers | 54 | 61 | .470 | 9 |
| Toronto Blue Jays | 54 | 62 | .466 | 9½ |
| Los Angeles Angels | 51 | 65 | .440 | 12½ |
| Oakland Athletics | 48 | 69 | .410 | 16 |
| Chicago White Sox | 28 | 90 | .237 | 36½ |
National League
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Philadelphia Phillies | 69 | 47 | .595 | — | 38–21 | 31–26 |
| New York Mets | 61 | 54 | .530 | 7½ | 30–29 | 31–25 |
| Atlanta Braves | 60 | 55 | .522 | 8½ | 32–26 | 28–29 |
| Washington Nationals | 53 | 64 | .453 | 16½ | 27–31 | 26–33 |
| Miami Marlins | 43 | 74 | .368 | 26½ | 23–38 | 20–36 |
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milwaukee Brewers | 66 | 49 | .574 | — | 32–21 | 34–28 |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 61 | 57 | .517 | 6½ | 31–27 | 30–30 |
| Chicago Cubs | 58 | 60 | .492 | 9½ | 32–27 | 26–33 |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 56 | 58 | .491 | 9½ | 27–31 | 29–27 |
| Cincinnati Reds | 56 | 60 | .483 | 10½ | 28–31 | 28–29 |
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles Dodgers | 66 | 49 | .574 | — | 35–22 | 31–27 |
| San Diego Padres | 65 | 52 | .556 | 2 | 30–29 | 35–23 |
| Arizona Diamondbacks | 64 | 53 | .547 | 3 | 32–26 | 32–27 |
| San Francisco Giants | 59 | 58 | .504 | 8 | 33–23 | 26–35 |
| Colorado Rockies | 43 | 74 | .368 | 24 | 26–31 | 17–43 |
National League Wild Card
| Team | W | L | Pct. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Philadelphia Phillies | 69 | 47 | .595 |
| Los Angeles Dodgers | 66 | 49 | .574 |
| Milwaukee Brewers | 66 | 49 | .574 |
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| San Diego Padres | 65 | 52 | .556 | +3 |
| Arizona Diamondbacks | 64 | 53 | .547 | +2 |
| New York Mets | 61 | 54 | .530 | — |
| Atlanta Braves | 60 | 55 | .522 | 1 |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 60 | 57 | .513 | 2 |
| San Francisco Giants | 59 | 58 | .504 | 3 |
| Chicago Cubs | 58 | 60 | .492 | 4½ |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 56 | 58 | .491 | 4½ |
| Cincinnati Reds | 56 | 60 | .483 | 5½ |
| Washington Nationals | 53 | 64 | .453 | 9 |
| Miami Marlins | 43 | 74 | .368 | 19 |
| Colorado Rockies | 43 | 74 | .368 | 19 |
- FORMAT 2
American League
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baltimore Orioles | 69 | 48 | .590 | — | 30–24 | 39–24 |
| New York Yankees | 68 | 48 | .586 | ½ | 34–26 | 34–22 |
| Boston Red Sox | 61 | 53 | .535 | 6½ | 27–29 | 34–24 |
| Tampa Bay Rays | 58 | 57 | .504 | 10 | 30–30 | 28–27 |
| Toronto Blue Jays | 54 | 62 | .466 | 14½ | 29–29 | 25–33 |
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleveland Guardians | 67 | 49 | .578 | — | 35–19 | 32–30 |
| Minnesota Twins | 65 | 50 | .565 | 1½ | 34–21 | 31–29 |
| Kansas City Royals | 64 | 53 | .547 | 3½ | 37–25 | 27–28 |
| Detroit Tigers | 55 | 61 | .474 | 12 | 26–31 | 29–30 |
| Chicago White Sox | 28 | 90 | .237 | 40 | 17–41 | 11–49 |
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Houston Astros | 60 | 55 | .522 | — | 32–26 | 28–29 |
| Seattle Mariners | 60 | 56 | .517 | ½ | 34–26 | 26–30 |
| Texas Rangers | 54 | 61 | .470 | 6 | 31–27 | 23–34 |
| Los Angeles Angels | 51 | 65 | .440 | 9½ | 26–35 | 25–30 |
| Oakland Athletics | 48 | 69 | .410 | 13 | 29–30 | 19–39 |
National League
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Philadelphia Phillies | 69 | 47 | .595 | — | 38–21 | 31–26 |
| New York Mets | 61 | 54 | .530 | 7½ | 30–29 | 31–25 |
| Atlanta Braves | 60 | 55 | .522 | 8½ | 32–26 | 28–29 |
| Washington Nationals | 53 | 64 | .453 | 16½ | 27–31 | 26–33 |
| Miami Marlins | 43 | 74 | .368 | 26½ | 23–38 | 20–36 |
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milwaukee Brewers | 66 | 49 | .574 | — | 32–21 | 34–28 |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 61 | 57 | .517 | 6½ | 31–27 | 30–30 |
| Chicago Cubs | 58 | 60 | .492 | 9½ | 32–27 | 26–33 |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 56 | 58 | .491 | 9½ | 27–31 | 29–27 |
| Cincinnati Reds | 56 | 60 | .483 | 10½ | 28–31 | 28–29 |
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB | Home | Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles Dodgers | 66 | 49 | .574 | — | 35–22 | 31–27 |
| San Diego Padres | 65 | 52 | .556 | 2 | 30–29 | 35–23 |
| Arizona Diamondbacks | 64 | 53 | .547 | 3 | 32–26 | 32–27 |
| San Francisco Giants | 59 | 58 | .504 | 8 | 33–23 | 26–35 |
| Colorado Rockies | 43 | 74 | .368 | 24 | 26–31 | 17–43 |
American League Wild Card
| Team | W | L | Pct. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baltimore Orioles | 69 | 48 | .590 |
| Cleveland Guardians | 67 | 49 | .578 |
| Houston Astros | 60 | 55 | .522 |
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York Yankees | 68 | 48 | .586 | +4½ |
| Minnesota Twins | 65 | 50 | .565 | +2 |
| Kansas City Royals | 64 | 53 | .547 | — |
| Boston Red Sox | 61 | 53 | .535 | 1½ |
| Seattle Mariners | 60 | 56 | .517 | 3½ |
| Tampa Bay Rays | 58 | 57 | .504 | 5 |
| Detroit Tigers | 55 | 61 | .474 | 8½ |
| Texas Rangers | 54 | 61 | .470 | 9 |
| Toronto Blue Jays | 54 | 62 | .466 | 9½ |
| Los Angeles Angels | 51 | 65 | .440 | 12½ |
| Oakland Athletics | 48 | 69 | .410 | 16 |
| Chicago White Sox | 28 | 90 | .237 | 36½ |
National League Wild Card
| Team | W | L | Pct. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Philadelphia Phillies | 69 | 47 | .595 |
| Los Angeles Dodgers | 66 | 49 | .574 |
| Milwaukee Brewers | 66 | 49 | .574 |
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| San Diego Padres | 65 | 52 | .556 | +3 |
| Arizona Diamondbacks | 64 | 53 | .547 | +2 |
| New York Mets | 61 | 54 | .530 | — |
| Atlanta Braves | 60 | 55 | .522 | 1 |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 60 | 57 | .513 | 2 |
| San Francisco Giants | 59 | 58 | .504 | 3 |
| Chicago Cubs | 58 | 60 | .492 | 4½ |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 56 | 58 | .491 | 4½ |
| Cincinnati Reds | 56 | 60 | .483 | 5½ |
| Washington Nationals | 53 | 64 | .453 | 9 |
| Miami Marlins | 43 | 74 | .368 | 19 |
| Colorado Rockies | 43 | 74 | .368 | 19 |
- Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but with the current Template:Flexbox wrap format, I think these are the two options. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 19:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've wondered.. why do we have the division winners are part of the wild card templates? They are usually on the same page as the division standings templates so it seems redundant. For what it's worth.. format 2 looks better than format 1 to me. Spanneraol (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Trois-Rivières Aigles (2013–)#Requested move 1 August 2024
[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trois-Rivières Aigles (2013–)#Requested move 1 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)