Talk:Harmon Killebrew/Archive 1

Birth place

Harmon Killebrew was born in Payette IDAHO....NOT INDIANA

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your contributions. Wikipedia is a wiki, and anyone- including you! - can edit nearly any article, at any time, by clicking the Edit This Page link at the bottom of the article. You don't even need to login, although there are several reasons why you might want to. So, feel free to make this correction yourself! If you are unsure about how to edit a page, try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. - Fennec 17:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Twins announcer

Wasn't he a Twins announcer for some time after his career ended? I seem to recall he did so. If so, that needs to be added to the article. DandyDan2007 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Found List of Minnesota Twins broadcasters. Will add to article. DandyDan2007 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

something should be added...

about how Killebrew had to wait for Yost to be traded before he could start everyday. I don't know the entire story. Kingturtle 19:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP Baseball Collaboration

There is poetential to make this an FA, but I think we should just concentrate on the GA first. Other GA baseball articles can be found here.

Colaborations

In order to fulfil tasks more efficiently and effectively it is recommended that members collaborate in groups of two or three and focus on one area of the article. I have created a general to-do list at the top of this page, please expand it where you see fit. You may list any sections that you have intrest in writing below. This is our fist WP Baseball AID, let's make it a good one! Blackngold29 05:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll check out Flickr to see about finding a more suitable image. I think it would help if someone broke the article up into sections (try to base it on another GA about a HOFer) so people have a bit of a framework to build on. leafschik1967 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't say that I know much about Mr. Killebrew, so I'll probably do more copy-editing and stuff like that, then writing; but I'll help where I can. As Leafschik said, we need to divide the article into sections; I'd say something general to start off with like: Early life, Early career, Later career (it's long enough to split into atleast two sections), Personal life/Retirement/HOF induction. So basically what's already there... The Career Notes needs merged into the Career section, it's basically a Trivia section. Blackngold29 18:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've gone rogue but I'm kinda just getting in there and pouring in whatever info I can find. I generally get crazy when I create/expand articles and then let everyone else rearrange if they want. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, go nuts! I'd be glad to but it in order. Blackngold29 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Stats

I'll volunteer to type out his season by season stats, like The Bambino. It seems to be the standard for FA articles, so might as well do it correctly now. Blackngold29 21:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of this personally (my fa doesn't have them, nor my ga), but if there's consensus to do that I won't stop you. Wizardman 23:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We should stay away from season-by-season stats. A single line summarizing their career is sufficient. You can link to mlb.com and baseball-reference.com and let the figger filberts knock themselves out with all the nifty data there. If you put in year-by-year, not only are you being repititious, you're also running the risk of making a mistake. It's not worth the bother. And there has been other discussion opposing it in general. One line for the career is generally enough. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I see...well, since I already typed it all out, if everyone wants it removed I won't stand in their way. But then again, it's already done so is leaving it in making the article worse? Blackngold29 04:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand the need for it. You're restating a bunch of numbers that are already in the links. And did you in fact type it by hand instead of copying-and-pasting? If so, there's a risk of mistakes. I'm not overly hung up on this matter either way, I'm just giving you my opinion. Others need to weigh in here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have experience in typing out stats before, but that obviously doesn't mean they're perfect everytime. I've never done a ball player's article before, so I will defer to the more experienced users when it comes to stats. Before I typed them out, there were his career totals and MLB rankings, I personally didn't like the rankings, because they're obviously changing constatnly and we would have to keep them updated; but once again, I defer to people with experience. Thoughts on that? Blackngold29 04:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would at least like to hear what Wknight94 has to say about it, since he's been doing some work on this page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I rarely see a need to reproduce an entire Baseball-Reference-style table of stats. It becomes a WP:INDISCRIMINATE violation. Who cares what Killebrew's on-base-percentage was? Or how many runs he scored? The infobox numbers should suffice. I also agree with Blackngold29 about the rankings. Tied for 417th in doubles?! That's even more WP:INDISCRIMINATE. His home run ranking would be the only possible exception IMHO, but even then, I would probably add a prose-style note that he ranked 5th (or whatever) in home runs when he retired. That will always be true and won't have to be updated. If someone was more adamant about his current HR ranking, I wouldn't argue against that. He's passed so rarely in that statistic that it wouldn't be annoying to see it changed. But anything else - even 34th in RBIs - would be silly to try to keep up to date IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So this is what we want? Blackngold29 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

	Games	At bats	Runs	Hits	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BA	OBP	SLG
Totals	2435	8147	1283	2086	290	24	573	1584	.256	.376	.509

That's the kind of thing I'm getting at. Meanwhile, the three traditional stats (HR, RBI, AVG) are already in the infobox. So it becomes a question of whether the expanded career stats are needed. I think it's reasonable to include them. If more detail is needed, the user can go to baseball-reference.com or one of the other figger filberts' nirvanas. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, done. Is there any specific areas that I could work on? It's coming along pretty well, but there are still a good deal of short choppy paragraphs. Blackngold29 17:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You can always re-word things to fix the choppiness. I'm tentatively planning on redoing the whole article to varying degrees anyway (like I did eons ago with Lee Smith (baseball)) but I can't guarantee when I'll have time. I could get hit by a bus at any moment!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the risk of trying to edit wikipedia from your Blackberry on a public street. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Career Notes section

Does anyone else see this section as "Trivia" in disguise? They're all interesting (probably more so to baseball fans), but are they really notable? I think that they should either be merged into the career prose, or eliminated. Also, if any are kept, they will need cited as none currently are. Blackngold29 17:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that they should be merged into the content. Also agreed they need to be sourced. Slap a {{fact}} tag on when you merge them in, k? As for notability, I haven't evaluated each of them. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a separate section on "Tape Measure Home Runs" could be set up, which includes the one marked at the MOA. Most of the other stuff could be merged into the text. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rank worth adding?

I have a Sporting News from 1999 that names Killebrew the 69th best ballplayer of all time. Would that be worth adding? Blackngold29 03:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

They have those rankings for various other players, I think. Check Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That'd be a good stat to throw in. The Sporting News list of Baseball's Greatest Players seems to be good. Wizardman 11:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. These are the elite, the "true" Hall of Famers. Note, for example, the absence of Chick Hafey from the list. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

GA cleanup?

I think we have enough length now for a GA, we just need to refine the prose and find citations for the lacking statements. Thoughts? Blackngold29 00:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm having a grand time piling in content and just found another nice book source, but don't wait for me. It definitely needs a thorough scan to re-evaluate the organization. It's definitely messy and I probably haven't helped much in that regard... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Final charge

I think that if the last few citation issues could be taken care of we could nom this for a GA. The article has already surpassed my expectations. What do ya say? Blackngold29 05:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we're good for the nom. Comments? Blackngold29 22:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've about exhausted what I can (or will) do. I found a couple more interesting sources I may make use of but probably not too much. If folks have proofread or signed off (or whatever) my latest additions, then go ahead with the GA nom. Anyone have suggestions to push for FA instead? I'm not real familiar with either process so I wouldn't know. I suppose lack of quality images of Mr. Killebrew himself would be a fatal flaw but if anyone lives around him and can convince him to give a picture, that might be the last piece to the puzzle (as it was for Lee Smith). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The gap between GA and FA isn't too bad so long as you know what they want. Go ahead and nom for GA, shouldn't be a problem. I'll look over the article and see what I can tweak/add in. Wizardman 21:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Y'all better start checking more closely. Someone's dyslexia kicked in and misread Charlotte to be Chattanooga as HK's home base in 1956! If I hadn't beared down and looked through this last source of mine, I would've never noticed. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Stadium (Detroit)

Google indicates a conflict on when it was that Harmon hammered one onto and over the left field roof at Detroit. Some sources say May 2, 1964. That is incorrect, and may be someone misreading a reference to the Detroit homer followed immediately by that date. [1] The Tigers were on the road on that date and the Twins were at Kansas City. That was an extraordinary day too, as Oliva, Allison, Hall and Killebrew hit four straight homers in the top of the 11th to bury the A's. [2] Several sources say August 3, 1962, off Jim Bunning. That appears to be the correct date. I'm trying to track down better sources than what I'm seeing on the internet. There's no question he hit it, just trying to be sure of the date. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The book The Corner, published by the Free Press in 1999, states the August 3, 1962, date in its timeline. The book also has a list of rooftop shots. Only 4 were hit to left. Over 30 were hit to right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this book and this book and this book? They all give August 3, 1962. Here's another mention - but no date. Related book here about HK hitting the longest HR in Memorial Stadium (Baltimore). In general, looks like there are several books listed here. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to look through my old Street & Smith Baseball Yearbooks. They used to have a pictorial section on "Tape Measure Homers", which tended to be dominated by Mantle, Stargell, Howard and Killebrew.

My home PC doesn't like however it is that Google books works. In any case, other sources also say that on May 24, 1964, Harmon hit the longest HR at Baltimore Memorial Stadium, 471 feet to deep left center. Incredibly, it didn't leave the park. The only one who hit it clear out, as far as I know, was F.Robby in 1966, but that was pulled more. Any objections to adding the Baltimore shot to his list of tape-measure homers in the article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

According to an older edition of Take Me Out to the Ballpark, Robby's shot was about 450 on the fly. They don't even mention the Killebrew hit. In fact, that one is hard to track down. I guess because it didn't go out, any attention it got was later overwhelmed by Robby's shot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No objection here. Try creating a Google account - I find it changes what is available at Google Books. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that, it's just that my home PC won't display it properly. My work PC does, I think. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I never noticed what technology they use to power that feature... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Take Me Out to the Ballpark (2000 edition) states Killebrew hit a home-run that cleared the left field roof at Tiger Stadium. He was one of four players to do so. It says nothing about the distance though. Blackngold29 17:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There are several sources confirming the Detroit shot. Distance is probably hard to figure since it didn't clear the roof on the fly. And Babe Ruth's center field home run in the early 1920s, before the double deck was built, topped them all at the ballpark, at about 575 feet on the fly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Contract?

Does anyone have a breakdown on HK's initial contract? It says $50K now but I've read $4K with a bunch of bonuses and I've read $30K with an additional $10K for the first two years. Hard to get a straight answer on this one and I don't have access to the New York Times article which is currently cited. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I used google news to check, and on here, it's got two papers saying 50k, i don't see any other ones that state it. Wizardman 11:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If there's a biography of Harmon, that might cover it. I'm not sure there is, though. No scandals. What can you write about a guy whose hobby was washing dishes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrosheet vs. others

Killebrew is an interesting case in that he is a big enough name to have a lot written about him, but is recent enough that exhaustive statistics at a game-by-game level are available at (my favorite web site) Retrosheet.org. I've just cracked into his first big month, May 1959, and already found a discrepancy. Porter, p. 808 says he hit 8 HRs in 12 days in early 1959 but Retrosheet says he hit 9 HRs from May 1 through May 12. I split the difference and said he had four multi-HR games from May 1-12 (actually I factored in a 5th multi-HR game on May 17) but I'm more likely to go with Retrosheet in the future. Thoughts? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Almanac only has box scores for certain years, and 1959 is one of them. Maybe retrosheet is their source, I don't know. [8] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've found most of Baseball Almanac's data to be derivative. Seasonal stats are often driven by http://www.baseball-databank.org/ (maintained by the same Sean Forman that runs Baseball-Reference) and play-by-play data is usually driven by Retrosheet. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Mormon

Killebrew being Mormon is well-known. I'm not sure exactly what "fact" the guy was tagging. That he was a convert while his wife was life-long? Maybe someone with the paper biography could answer that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It was his religion. I'm not disputing it, just saying that if you are going to make religion a part of the lead, it should have a citation. I personally didn't know he was a Mormon before reading that line, so I am not sure if it is common enough knowledge not to need a reference. leafschik1967 (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I just found a partial reference here so it appears to be verifiable. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if we get really desperate, we can look at the LDS Church website, where there are various references. Here's an example: [9] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one, that actually states explicitly that Harmon's a Mormon, as opposed to having to infer it from the previous item. Look for the section "The LDS Scene". It refers to an article in Family Weekly. That's a Sunday newspaper magazine, or used to be. [10] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

References

The Twins MLB.COM writeup about The Met [11] confirms the date of Harmon's 500th homer, as well as the fact that the street to the south was renamed Killebrew Drive. He hit plenty of drives, for sure. It doesn't quite come out and say that it's named for Harmon, but they probably figured the audience would deduce that it was indeed named for Harmon and not for, say, Ole Killebrew, the brat vendor. Also note the old photo that shows the single deck in left before they put up a double-deck for the benefit of the Vikings. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Very cool. Surely that counts as a reliable source! Feel free to replace whichever fact tag(s) are next to those items. And like I said on my talk page, a picture of the street sign would be a nice addition too. A picture is worth a thousand words and all that... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Note

If you are going to replace the 'recent' fact tag items - why not just find a citation? And in the same vein, why revert an entire edit consisting mainly of copy editing to do so? leafschik1967 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To prevent that, you may want to break up your edits a bit. I almost reverted you too but, at the last second, saw that you had moved the content elsewhere and not removed it. It was hard to tell given the number of unrelated changes in the one diff. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I reverted was it looked to me like the cn stuff had been clobbered. If they are still there, that's fine, but I have other projects besides this one. If a few months pass, that might be different. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I'm no good at setting up the formal structure for citations, but here are a few that someone can install if they want:

• Homers in the 60s - I don't know if this is a valid source or not, but someone went to the trouble of adding them up. [12] Killebrew 393, Aaron 375, Mays 350, F.Robby 316, McCovey 300, etc.
• Broadcasting career, other careers, charities - covered on what is billed as Harmon's official website. [13] Not sure that's necessarily a valid source either, but it's the first one I found.
• June 3, 1967, longest homer at the Met - The Twins media guide for 2008, p.239, estimates that shot at 520 feet, and calls it the longest home run ever hit by a Twins player.
• Tiger Stadium left field roof - The Corner, published by the Detroit Free Press, 1999, p.146, has a list of the rooftop homers. 31 were hit to right. Only 4 were hit to left: Killebrew on August 3, 1962; Frank Howard of the Senators on May 18, 1968; Cecil Fielder of the Tigers on August 25, 1990; and Mark McGwire of the A's on April 21, 1997.
• Frank Robinson's homer being 20 feet shorter - Green Cathedrals says F. Robby's hit went 450 feet. That's the one that prompted the O's to post a flag with the word "HERE" on the back wall of the bleachers where the ball went out.

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gnashing teeth over the 60s one. It's basically just a fact that anyone could determine by doing some math. But I can't find a legitimate-looking source that states it to save my life! I've got the SABR Home Run Encyclopedia but it lists decades as 1961-1970. Killebrew leads that category too BTW. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There's another dilemma, namely the question of how "the 60s" is defined. I can argue that 1961-1970 is the 60s. The 20th century ran from 1901-2000, not 1900-1999. Some would say 1900-1999 was "the 1900s", though. The question becomes whether stating that fact about 1960-1969 without direct citation amounts to "analysis". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added a decent source. "Baseball Research Journal" sounds pretty reliable to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for an explicit citation about the home plate and/or the bleacher chair at the MOA? The plate, of course, is self-defining. The bleacher chair is common knowledge. I'm not exactly sure where a reference is, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the reference I found said nothing about Mall of America at all but it sounds like yours does? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I found another one available to anyone with a Google account. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harmon Killebrew/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Greetings. I will be reviewing this article shortly to see if it fills the GA criteria. Nosleep (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MOS compliance: A few problems here, but they should be reasonably easy to fix. I think the jargon "tape measure homer" could be explained a little better, and "Killer" from the lead is said to be a portmanteau, but it's just not. A portmanteau is a mixture of two words. There's only one word listed as a source of the nickname. I'm not sure what you want to say here, so I'll refrain from changing it myself. I also think the lead is a little too long (I like to be able to see the table of contents when I open the page), but that's more of a personal preference and not really grounds to fail the article. I'm also puzzled by the subheading "World Series." The subsection documents a 4-year period in Killebrew's career, but he only played in the World Series for one of those years. I'm still not really crazy about this. I went in and took out the "World Series" heading entirely.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Very well structured

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: There are two [citation needed]s even before my review begins, and I saw one other as well. This is a definite issue

   C. No original research: This'll get upgraded to a + once those [citation needed]s are taken care of (as will, of course, 2b)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Definitely solid here

   B. Focused: It diverges a little here and there, but not to a point I'd even think about failing the article for this.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias: Looks to be so

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Two free use images related, if peripherally so, to the subject. Images aren't required at all for GA (not even one), so this is a definite plus

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Can't pass it just yet. There are some issues to take care of. I'll come back in a week and see if they're taken care of. Boy, I don't know. This is hard. I'm going to seek a second opinion.

Also, and I'm unsure where a remark like this would belong in the GA rundown, I notice User:Baseball Bugs reverted something a few weeks ago that I changed tonight, the use of "Nats" in place of "Senators" for Killebrew's first season. His edit summary said that the team was known as the "Nationals" at that point. If this is indeed true, it needs to be mentioned (and, of course, sourced) in the article. When I removed the instance of "Nats," I noted in my edit summary that neither "Nats" nor "Nationals" appear anywhere else in the article, so it is confusing to say Killebrew signed with the Senators and then a few lines later call them the Nats.

All in all, a good article. Take care of these few issues and I'd be happy to capitalize that "g." Nosleep (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed's have been dealt with. Wizardman 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done with the exception of the "World Series" heading, which I'm actually not sure what to change it to. Wizardman 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to make the comment more noticeable, I'm going to seek a second opinion at WP:GAN, because I truly can't decide. It's really close. So, I hope you don't mind staying in purgatory a bit longer :P Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion

• In the lead, add a comma after 1965.
• In the Washington section, if dates are going to be linked, it would be best to link "June 16". Same thing for the Breakout season section.
• In the Minnesota section, link "New York Yankees" once.
• In the MVP and return to postseason section, this sentence ---> "1969 was also the year that the official logo of Major League Baseball was introduced", the beginning of it should be re-written. Same thing for the start of the sentence for the Decline section.
• In the Post-retirement activities section, Reference 1 in paragraph 2, should come after the comma.
• References 73 and 74 are missing Publisher info.
• References 76 and 77 need to use the {{cite web}}.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Refs 73 and 74 have the same title and publisher, so I didn't see a need to add it in a second time. I could if needed, just seems bureaucratic. Wizardman 02:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to ThinkBlue and to editors who have worked so hard in improving this article. I have passed it by the good article criteria. If you believe this assessment to be in error, you may take it to Good article reassessment. Congratulations, and keep up the good work. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 04:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)