Talk:1951 National League tie-breaker series

The teams

Brooklyn Dodgers

The Dodgers, managed by Chuck Dressen, had been in first place for most of the season. They had a formidable lineup, featuring four future Hall of Famers in catcher and National League Most Valuable Player Roy Campanella, second baseman Jackie Robinson, shortstop Pee Wee Reese, and center fielder Duke Snider. First baseman Gil Hodges was no slouch, either, leading the team with 40 home runs, second in the league.

The Dodgers' pitching staff was led by Don Newcombe, who had won 20 games with an ERA of 3.28 and a league-leading 164 strikeouts. Their number two starter, Preacher Roe, might have been even better, winning 22 games while losing just 3, with an ERA of 3.04. However, the 35-year-old Roe had started the last game of the season the day before the series began, and would not appear in the playoff.

New York Giants

The Giants had come from way behind to tie the Dodgers at the end of the regular season. They had been 13 games behind with just 44 games to go, and only climbed into a tie in the next-to-last day of the season, having gone 37-7 over the last seven weeks. While the Giants' offensive attack was not as impressive as that of the Dodgers, they did have the league's RBI leader, left fielder Monte Irvin along with a 20-year-old center fielder named Willie Mays, who would win the National League Rookie of the Year award. The team's only All-Star was shortstop Alvin Dark.

Their pitching staff was led by Sal "The Barber" Maglie and Larry Jansen, who tied for the league lead in wins with 23, and also finished second and third in strikeouts behind Newcombe. Maglie had finished second in the league in ERA, just .05 behind Chet Nichols Jr. of the Boston Braves. Like Roe, Jansen had started the final game of the season, and would not appear until the very end.

Merge discussion

As per the discussion beginning at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Shot_Heard_.27Round_the_World, it seems that the "shot" article should be merged into this series article, as the content of the "shot" article is (1) redundant with the series article, or (2) cruft that should be deleted. Redirects should of course remain in place. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge There is enough overlap to warrant a merge. There just does not seem to be enough about the shot itself that would have it be undue weight in 1951 National League tie-breaker series. Also, the size of the merged article would not warrant a split per WP:SPINOUT. I think most of the pop culture section is trivial and can also be cleaned up (unless more significance is found). Maintaining redirects ensures readers are able to get to the information even if there is not a standlone article anymore. Per WP:R#PLA, the term "shot heard around the world" should be in bold in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge. I was going to suggest a redirect, but an article for the original "Shot heard 'round the world" (regarding the Revolutionary War battles of Lexington and Concord) already exists. On that article, there is already a hat note directing interested baseball fans to the baseball "shot." After merging these articles, the hat note will need to be tweaked. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That article is another mess, as the baseball reference is in the body and not just the hatnote. It seems to be a dumping ground for all trivial uses of "shot heard around the world".—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge due to significant overlap. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 04:04, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
• Merge due to reason 1. Zepppep (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• My concern is that the Shot Heard Round The World is far more famous than the 1951 tie breaker series, therefore readers searching for information on the famous home run might have difficulty locating any information. I'm of a mind that the fame of the home run, like the Homer in the Gloamin, far outstrips the tie breaker series, and thus may deserve it's own article. Bear in mind that Thomson's home run could be the most famous single home run in the entire history of Major League Baseball.Orsoni (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball) remains as a redirect, "shot heard around the world" is bolded and discussed in the lead, and the content is merged properly, I think a user will be able to get to the same information without needed information duplicated in a standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A redirect will work, but as stated over on the Baseball Project Talk Page, as one of the most famous single events in the history of Major League Baseball, it can probably survive as its own article.Orsoni (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Do not merge Terrible idea. Vidor (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Because The Shot Heard Round The World is a unique, specific event, referred to by a unique, specific name. It is far more famous than the tie-breaker series as a whole, and it will make it easier for people searching on the internet to find it. No need for a pointless merge. Vidor (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What would we put in that article then? The game description would be in here anyway, so aside from a bit of lore and quotes, there wouldn't be anything to make it a solid article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What would we put in it? Exactly what's in the article now, presumably. I can't see a need for this other than a desire to meddle with things that aren't broken. Vidor (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

These two articles are covering mostly the same material, except the series article covers the entire series, while the "shot" article focuses on the one game. It's duplicative. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because the game is important. And memorable. More so than the rest of the series that proceeded it. Wikipedia would be better off if people didn't actively work to make it worse. Vidor (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be much easier to engage in a constructive discussion if you could assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Merge – per all reasons stated above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Do not merge - I am guessing most of the people advocating merging here are not baseball fans or know much about the sport. This specific play has a vast significance in baseball lore, as proven by the many many sources that exist that talk about this play in one form or another. As wikipedia has single pages for many famous plays (the catch (baseball), the catch (football), immaculate reception, the play (college football), the tackle, the golden deception, hand of god, and on and on) that exist outside the game or season they belong to, i do not feel that having this specific play is out of line in what wiki-sports does. this specific play is so much more important, relevant, and significant than the 3 game series that if anything, that page could be merged to the 1951 baseball season. as for the overlap, i do not believe they need exist - clean up the page to remove anything of game 3 that could be in the 1951 tie-breaker series article, and focus specifically on the play itself, the aftermath, the broadcasts, cultural legacy, giants/dodgers rivalry, etc. Thomaslw (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have petered out. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll compromise on this. I'll make an honest effort to bring the Shot article to GA status, trying to focus on the lore and reactions there, keeping most of that out of this article. If it can be done, great, but if it doesn't create a real article, then it will be merged. Wizardman 03:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1951 National League tie-breaker series/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Will review, comments to follow in the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• As a general note, you might want to make sure you're not using overly technical language here. I'll try to point out specific examples as I get further down.
• There are a few repeated wikilinks, might want to weed some of those out.
• No dabs, but this looks dead.
• Lone image looks fine.
• I made some copyedits, feel free to object to any of them.
• Spotchecked 3, 7, 21, and 31. No issues found.

Lead

• I think you might want to add more about the outcomes of the games. Also, some of the second paragraph might be a bit trivial for the lead, you might want to move that into the body.
• I'd move the third sentence to the second place, too.

Background

• "The 1951 Major League Baseball season was projected to be a contest" Might want to avoid the passive here.

Game 1 summary

• "In the bottom of the first, Carl Furillo grounded out Pee Wee Reese got the first hit of the game with a single." Something got mixed up here.
• I feel like the Yankee scout's attendance might be a bit trivial here, no problem, but you might want to remove.
• "Neither team managed a hit in the seventh inning, as both pitched retired the first three batters they faced." Something mixed up here.

Game 2 summary

• "The Giants failing to get a hit in the bottom of the ninth to end the game." Fragment, also fused participle.
• "After the game resumed, Labine scored on back-to-back singles by Reese and Snider, and the Giants came up to bat, failing to earn a hit as the score became 6–0 after six innings." I'd suggest breaking this sentence in two.

Game 3 summary

• "Newcombe set down the Giants in order in the bottom of the eighth" This is one example of something that might be confusing to non-baseball fans, is there a way to make it clearer?

Aftermath

• The quote you have is good, but would it be possible to summarize more of the reception?
• When did Prager publish that the Giants learned signals? And when did Branca give that quote to the Times?
• I'd move the penultimate paragraph to the last place.
• Is there a good way around the repetition of "gave him"?
• I'd mention that the shot heard round the world became very famous/made its way into fiction/lore. No need to go into too much detail, but it might be nice to have a mention. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  Done except aftermath and wikilink-checking. Undecided on taking the Yankees scout piece on, I found it interesting but it seems like an obvious thing for them to do. Wizardman 02:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Ok, thanks for the fixes, I think this looks passable at this point--good work! It's a very thorough presentation of a fascinating event, and I'll pass it now. My only concern left is the second paragraph of the lead. It seems a bit trivial for the lead, and I'd prefer to see it moved to the body and cited. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I'll still be tweaking things here as I work on the Shot article, so what I didn't touched yet will likely be addressed at some point, or if not then it will at least be over there in much greater detail. Wizardman 17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Margin

As in Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball): the biggest margin was 13.5 games, in this article it was incorrectly changed already on June 24, 2012, in the forementioned article on Jan. 1, 2013.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1951 National League tie-breaker series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113031203/http://joshuaprager.com/wsj/articles/baseball/ to http://joshuaprager.com/wsj/articles/baseball/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)