Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Baseball High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't see why we need separate articles for NL and interleague rivalries when they can be discussed on this page. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I put separate articles for the NL and interleague rivalries is because there are more article pages on the National League rivalries and there are a lot of interleague rivalries. Those are the reasons why I put separate articles. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support merge Separate articles are entirely unnecessary, the definition of content forks. They can easily be discussed in a single article. If all of the managers of all active teams can be rolled into, and summarized in, one article, then these articles are over-split. — KV5 • Talk • 00:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly support merge. There's only one reason why I did separate articles. I used the articles on the NFL rivalries pages as the guide for this. You can see how long the articles on those rivalries are, particularly in the intraconference and intradivisional rivalries (i.e., Intradivisional rivalries in the American Football Conference, Intradivisional rivalries in the National Football Conference, Intraconference rivalries in the American Football Conference, Intraconference rivalries in the National Football Conference). Yes, there are a lot of rivalries, but the only reason why I felt that separate articles were necessary was because there are more articles on the National League and interleague rivalries and there's only one in the American League. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 12:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. There is a lot of new rivalries, such as Cubs/White Sox, Cards/Royals, Rays/Marlins, and Cards/Brewers that not been talked very much at all. Kimmy78 (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmy78, yes I would support merge. There are a lot of new rivalries. I have talked about them. The Cubs/White Sox, Rays/Marlins I talked about in the article about the interleague rivalries. There's only one reason why I created different articles: There are a lot of articles in the National League and Interleague rivalries, and there's only one in the American League. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 04;04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has been completely merged. I checked the articles on the rivalries in the NHL and the NBA as the guide on how to merge the other separate articles into this one. Please discuss other rivalries before adding it to this article. I don't think it's necessary to create an article on the rivalry between the Philadelphia Phillies and the Pittsburgh Pirates at this time, though the rivalry doesn't anymore exist, but you can discuss it if you prefer. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 15:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already created the article on the rivalry between the Phillies and the Pirates and working on it. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 01:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can brewers/cubs or astros/cardinals be on the same list as cubs/cardinals? Or Braves/Mets on the same page as Phillies/Mets? These three are all new rivalries (less than 20 years old) and are only rivals because of recent division realignment. They don't deserve to be on this list. Ultimahero (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Brewers/Cubs is a geographical rivalry. Braves/Mets is due to division realignment. The Mets had been chasing the Braves for the division lead during the 1990s. Yes, they deserve to be on the list. – SNIyer12, (talk), 11:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brewers/Cubs is also due to realignment. True, geography is involved as well, but the two teams weren't rivals until the most recent realignment. Were they rivals BEFORE the realignment? No, they weren't. So the most immediate cause of the rivalry is the fact that they were recently placed int he same division. And the rivalry is simply too young to be on this list. Braves/Mets is also due to realignment, as you would agree. Again, it's not old enough to be on this list. I'm giving you reasons why it doesn't belong; you're just asserting that it should be there. Why do these rivalries deserve to be on this list alongside the most historic rivalries in baseball history? Or why do they deserve to be on the list to the exclusion of any other division rivalry, such as Padres/Rockies, Pirates/Marlins, or Rangers/Mariners? You need to answer these questions before you put those back in. Ultimahero (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice that you have not even mentioned Astros/Cardinals and yet you continue to reinsert it into the article. Please give solid evidence for why it should be allowed. Ultimahero (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. I put them in because there are articles on the rivalries. Also, before the two-division play, teams played each other frequently, playing 18 times a season. Also, the teams have played in the playoffs. – SNIyer12, (talk), 14:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It DOES matter. You did not answer my questions. If you say that any rivalry can be placed on this list, then I expect you to write up something for every single rivalry in the history of baseball. That would be consistent. But obviously not every rivalry is a significant rivalry. So please explain how these are more significant than any other division rivalry. Ultimahero (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on the rivalries between the Mets and the Braves, the Cubs and the Brewers, and the Astros and the Cardinals. You're not looking at the sections and see that there's an article. They are significant rivalries and deserve to be on the list. – SNIyer12, (talk), 14:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, please do not be so bold as to tell me what I have or have not looked at. I think I'm more knowledgeable about that than you. I have seen the accompanying articles. However, that doesn't mean anything. Anyone could write a short article on any division rival. Does that automatically qualify them for being on this page? And just because these teams have articles does not automatically mean they deserve to be on this list. You have yet to explain why they are significant. Again, should every rivalry be allowed on this list? Or is there some other criteria? Please explain. Ultimahero (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article explains some of the most intense rivalries. The rivalries removed warrant to be allowed on the list, as they are stated in this article and slideshow. [5] – SNIyer12, (talk), 14:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I don't think that Forbes is really qualified to determine which baseball rivalries are the "most intense". That's not their area of expertise. Finance is their strength, not baseball. The article looked promising at first because it claimed that ticket mark-up was one an important factor in determining which rivalries are heated. That made sense; if fans were willing to pay more then perhaps the games are more meaningful. However, if you'll notice their top ten list wasn't ranked according to the ticket mark-up. (For example, Cub/Cardinals ranked 6th and had a 14% mark-up. Yet both Pirates/Phillies [5th place] and White Sox/Indians [4th place] were ranked higher despite having no mark-up on their ticket prices.) Thus the big economic indicator that Forbes cited was apparently not a factor in this ranking. So it seems that this list was more a product of just some fan rather than any legitimate economic indicator. If I am misinterpreting the article then please tell me but I see no reason to give this list credence.(Also, even if Forbes did rank the teams according to mark-up that would be to ignore the possibility that the rivalry might only be meaningful to the fans of those two teams and could have zero national significance.)

I don't think any of your reasons for including these rivalries have been valid. You argued that it "doesn't matter" how significant the rivalry was; you apparently believe that any rivalry should be allowed on this page. However, can't we say that every baseball team is the rival of every other baseball team in some general sense because they all compete against one another? According to your criteria, we should just make a list of all possible match-ups and that would be sufficient. But surely this page is dealing with rivalries that go beyond just the ordinary. A person who clicks on this page would most likely expect to see historic rivalries that carry the highest level of importance. So you must provide some criteria for which rivalries can make this page, which you have thus far refused to do.

Also, just because a fan created a Wikipedia entry on a particular rivalry doesn't automatically make that rivalry important enough to go on this list. Any fan could make any page for any teams. Surely this is not a serious standard. If I create a Padres/Blue Jays rivalry page will we link to that here? So please provide some objective criteria. Thank you. Ultimahero (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the rivalries between the Braves and the Mets, Astros and Cardinals, and Brewers and Cubs. They are all important rivalries. Brewers and Cubs is because of the geographic proximity and the race in 2008 does show it. Braves and Mets is a big rivalry. The Mets often competed with the Braves for the division lead during the 1990s. They've had problems against them at Turner Field and Bobby Cox has played against the Mets often. These are some key points you need to understand. I don't want this to become an edit war and they are important rivalries. – SNIyer12, (talk), 01:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs/Brewers is not PRIMARILY geographic. It is primarily die to the realignment. Were they rivals BEFORE realignment? If not, then that proves that realignment is the single biggest factor that lead to a rivalry. I'm not saying that geography doesn't matter but simply that it's not the biggest factor. Mets/Braves were competitive during the 90's. But, again, the biggest reason they are rivals is due to realignment. The Braves/Mets article itself agrees with this. And you have not once defended Astros/Cardinals despite continuing to reinsert it. All of these rivalries are less than 20 years old. That can't constitute a major rivalry like the others on this page. It would help if you would provide some standard for what makes an important rivalry. Ultimahero (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs/Brewers IS PRIMARILY geographic. They were interleague rivals before realignment. Mets/Braves, both teams are still rivals. Their rivalry started in the 1969 NLCS. You think it's just due to realignment. The article on the Braves/Mets rivalry has information about the two teams fielding contenders during the 1990s. They both fielded contenders in 2005. Chipper Jones still plays for the Braves and has attacked at the Mets. They are major rivalries. – SNIyer12, (talk), 01:43 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support your assertion that Cubs/Brewers were major rivals before realignment. The Mets/Braves page itself says that the rivalry didn't really start until they were in the same division, the 1969 NLCS aside. Again, what is your standard for determining which rivalries are major rivalries?Ultimahero (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This rivalry didn't really being until the realignment of 1994. Even the Mets-Braves article agrees that the two teams being placed in the same division is what created the rivalry. Of these years since 1994, only 2 times have both teams been competitive in a way that goes beyond simple hatred for a divisional foe. These two seasons were 1999 and 2000. In 1994 neither team made the playoffs and the Braves finished 12.5 games ahead of New York. In 1995 Atlanta won the division, finishing 21 games ahead of New York. In 1996, the Braves won the division and finished 25 games ahead of the Mets. In 1997, the Braves won the division and finished 13 games ahead of the Mets. In 1998, the Braves won the division and finished 18 games ahead of New York. In 1999, both teams made the playoffs and battled in the NLCS. In 2000, both teams made the playoffs but did not play one another. In 2001, the Mets came in third in the division, 6 games behind the first place Braves. In 2002, the Atlanta finished 26.5 games ahead of the Mets and won the division. In 2003, the Braves finished 34.5 games ahead of the Mets and won the division. In 2004, the Braves finished 25 games ahead of the Mets and won the division. In 2005, Atlanta won the division and finished 7 games in front of the 4th place Mets. In 2006 the Mets won the division and finished 18 games ahead of 3rd place Atlanta. From 2007 to 2009 neither team made the playoffs. Finally, in 2010 the Braves won the wild-card and finished 12 games ahead of the 4th place Mets.

So only in 1999 and 2000 was there any real competition between the two teams. I'm not saying that two division rivals need to make the playoffs for it to have been a "competitive year", but in every other year they weren't even close. The Braves were crushing the Mets prior to 1999 and from 2001-2005. The one year the Mets won the division was a year Atlanta finished a distant third. And neither teams has had much success since 2006, save the Braves playoff appearance last year. So for a rivalry that is only entering it's 18th season (which is incredibly short for baseball), and has only had 2 competitive years, how can this be considered a significant rivalry?Ultimahero (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cubs/Brewers rivalry is primarily a rivalry due to the Brewers switching leagues in 1998. Even the Brewers/Cubs page agrees with this fact. In 1998, the Cubs won the wild-card and finished 15.5 games ahead of the Brewers. In 1999, the Brewers and Cubs finished 5th and 6th respectively in the NL central. In 2000, the Brewers finished in 3rd place, 8 games ahead of last place Chicago. In 2001, the Cubs finished 3rd int he division, 20 games ahead of Milwaukee. In 2002, the Cubs and Brewers finished 5th and 6th respectively in the NL central. In 2003, the Cubs won the division and finished 20 games ahead of the last place Brewers. In 2004, the Cubs finished 3rd, 21.5 games ahead of last place Milwaukee. In 2005, the Brewers and Cubs finished in 3rd and 4th place respectively in the NL Central. In 2006, The Brewers and Cubs finished 4th and 6th respectively in the NL Central. In 2007, the Cubs won the division, narrowly edging out the Brewers by 2 games. In 2008, the Cubs won the division and the Brewers won the wild-card, although they did not meet int he playoffs. In 2009, the Cubs finished 2nd and the Brewers 3rd in the NL Central with both teams missing the playoffs. In 2010, the Brewers and Cubs finished 3rd and 5th respectively in the NL Central.

2007 and 2008 and the only seasons where these teams have been competitive in a way that affects baseball as a whole. The majority of their "rivalry" has been each team trying to avoid finishing in last place. For a rivalry that is entering it's 14th season (incredibly short for baseball), and has only had 2 competitive seasons, how do we call such a true rivalry?Ultimahero (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the one rivalry that has yet to be defended by proponents of the adding these 3 rivalries to the page. Ironically, though, I feel this has the most going for it. The rivalry didn't truly being until the 1994 division realignment. They have had 5 competitive seasons, compared to only 2 for Braves/Mets and Cubs/Brewers. In 1996 the Cardinals won the division with the Astros finishing only 6 games back. In 2001, both made the playoffs, although both were eliminated in the first round. In 2004, both made the playoffs and met in the NLCS. In 2005 both teams made the playoffs and again met int he NLCS. Finally, in 2006 the Cardinals won the division, finishing only 1.5 games ahead of Houston.

So this rivalry has more competitive seasons than the other two (5 v.s 2 v.s 2), as well as having met in the NLCS in back to back years. Still, there are two things that keep me from saying this is a truly significant rivalry. First, it's only 18 years old. When you consider how old many of the other rivalries on this page are, some over a century, it seems insulting to add one that's been going on less than 20 years. Second, the Astros aren't even the Cardinals biggest rivals. The Cubs are. By definition this would be a secondary rivalry. That doesn't automatically disqualify it; the Giants are the Dodgers biggest rivals but that doesn't mean that Dodgers/Yankees or even Dodgers/Angels is a "small rivalry". But the difference is that Astros/Cardinals doesn't even seem to be close to Cardinals/Cubs, whereas at least Dodgers/Yankees isn't THAT far off of Giants/Dodgers. So I still don't think this rivalry belongs on the page, either. However, I'm more happy to listen to counter-argument for any of these three rivalries.Ultimahero (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one wanted to improve the main article, I redirected it to the page. – SNIyer12, (talk), 15:23 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I recommend we break up those rivalries into different sections. The Yankees-Giants rivalry should be moved to the "historic" section since it hasn't been really been a rivalry in over 50 years.Ultimahero (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's already an 'historical' section, creating another historical section based off of the Subway Series is redundant. Giants-Yankees certainly belongs in the historical section because it's been over 50 years since they had a rivalry. And, since most inter-league rivalries are alphabetized, Mets-Yankees should fit into that. Dodgers-Yankees is the only question in my mind. I think it belongs at the top, since it's the oldest, and a lot of the history was between LA and NY so it doesn't fit under "Subway Series".Ultimahero (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I proposed the rivalries to have a "Historical origins from Subway Series" for the NYY-LAD and NYY-SFG. The 2nd part of the section would be "Modern Subway Series" ie NYM-NYY. By splitting it up that way, we tell the reader the origins of the rivalry, but how it moved on too. Arnabdas (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there's already a section about historical rivalries. To make a section about historical rivalries from the Subway Series is redundant. If we go your route we might as well do away with the "historical rivalries" section and put all of those teams in their own heading where the rivalry historically originated from.Ultimahero (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just recently, I saw a new rivalry page, titled Reds–Cardinals rivalry, which is about the Cincinnati Reds vs. St. Louis Cardinals. I tried to add a section on the rivalry, but Ultimahero removed it. The rivaly goes back to the late 1800's, but ended with the 1969 realignment, but started back again with the 1994 realignment. Also, the cities of Cincinnati and St. Louis are approximately 6-7 hours apart by car.

Does this rivalry should remain on the page? I feel so, as it has happened for a long time, but Ultimahero think it shouldn't be there. – SNIyer12, (talk), 02:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out with other rivalry pages, simply having a separate page for the rivalry does not automatically make it a significant rivalry. And on the Reds/Cardinals page I only see two notable instances between the two teams from 1892 (the first year they were both in the NL) and 1969 (the year divisions were introduced to the MLB). One is the 1964 season where the Reds finished 1 game behind the Cardinals for first place. The other was a fight that occurred in 1967. But there's no indication that the fight was due to a preexisting hatred between the two teams; it just seems to be one game that got out of hand. And it's not as if the two clubs were close in the standings that year; the Cardinals-Reds rivalry page says that the Reds were already falling out if contention by that point, and they finished 14.5 games back. So, from 1892-1968 (77 years by my count), they only had 1 competitive season. Then they were in different divisions from 1969 to 1993 and did not directly compete. In 1994, after realignment put them both in the NL Central, they've finished 1-2 in the standings only twice: in 2000 when the Cardinals finished 10 games ahead of Cincinnati, and 2010 when the Reds finished 5 games in front of St. Louis.

So how can this be called a rivalry at all, let alone a consistently heated rivalry? Not only should this not be included on the the MLB Rivalries page, I think that the Reds-Cardinals page should be deleted.Ultimahero (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See "Regional Postseason Series" at Retrosheet. These "regional series" were official—sanctioned by Baseball. They exclude preseason (none sanctioned), mid-season (none sanctioned), and unsanctioned postseason games matching the same teams.

Timespans and counts. for the 32 series covered

• Boston Red Sox–;New York Giants 1909 (1)
• Cleveland–Pittsburgh 1913 only (1)
• Cleveland–;Cincinnati 1910–1917 (3)
• Boston AL–NL (0)
• Philadelphia AL–NL (0)
• St. Louis AL–NL 1917 only (1)
• New York AL–NL 1910–1914 (2)
• Chicago AL–NL 1905–1942 (24)

--P64 (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what I'm seeing. Are these rivalries?Ultimahero (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference to Retrosheet coverage of official postseason series played beside the World Series from 1905 to 1942. Presumably all but the first one or two should be included in Wikipedia coverage of MLB rivalries. Games are not rivalries, only one aspect of rivalries. No other aspect of rivalries is much covered here yet; indeed, there is a tendency to equate rivalries with interleague games beginning 1997. --P64 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. This shows certain postseason series between teams that aren't the World Series. But other than Cubs/White Sox, the others are just a stray series here and there. So I don't understand what you are saying should be included. I agree that the Inter-league stuff is overplayed, but a stray series between the Giants and Red Sox doesn't make a rivalry.Ultimahero (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is not proposing making a new rivalry, but including these games into the already existing rivalry articles. Arnabdas (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could put some of the AL Central teams on here. Twins/White Sox and Indians/Tigers have long histories. However, I'm not incredibly knowledgeable on any of those, so I'd like it if anyone with more expertise could offer an opinion.Ultimahero (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason arises as to the Reds-Cardinals...not enough reliable sources documenting the long history. Arnabdas (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with your comparison. Reds-Cardinals were in separate divisions from 1969 to 1994. Twins/White Sox were always in the AL West until realignment moved them both to the Central. Same goes for Indians/Tigers in the East. These may not be enough to substantiate them as heated rivalries, but your analogy doesn't fit.Ultimahero (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do think you're right that there's just not enough history there. All of those teams have been around a long time but they never really established any ongoing competition. Too bad.Ultimahero (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Twins-White Sox rivalry is just a microcosm of a much larger regional rivalry between Minneapolis/Saint Paul and Chicago. Teams from Minneapolis/Saint Paul and Chicago often have rivalries with each other in other sports. Hockey and football come to mind with the Minnesota Wild vs Chicago Blackhawks rivalry and the Minnesota Vikings vs the Chicago Bears rivalry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.171.182.121 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this rivalry belong? It's existed only since 2005, a mere 6 years, and both teams haven't been any good during that stretch. So why include it?Ultimahero (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MLB considers this a "natural" rivalry. Arnabdas (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please give some sources for that.Ultimahero (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/beltway-series-frederic-p-miller/1030102821 Arnabdas (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source. However, I notice that the book's description is this: "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." So... a book that borrows from Wikipedia should be used as a source for Wikipedia?

I think Dodgers and Reds might fit well under the "Historical Rivalries". They were two of the most competitive teams during the 70's and 80's, as they often fought for the NL West. They had close 1/2 finishes in 1961 (Reds by 4), 1973 (Reds by 3.5), 1974 (Dodgers by 4), 1978 (Dodgers by 2.5), 1981 (Dodgers by .5 in the first half), 1985 (Dodgers by 5.5), 1988 (Dodgers by 7), and 1990 (Reds by 5). They've also had multiple 1/2 finishes that weren't as close: 1940 (Reds by 12), 1970 (Reds by 14.5), 1975 (Reds by 20), 1976 (Reds by 10), and 1977 (Dodgers by 10). They also played in the 1995 NLDS with the Reds sweeping. Finally, in 1988 Tom Browning threw a perfect game against the Dodgers. Anyone have any thoughts?Ultimahero (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some are-

http://local.cincinnati.com/quiz/quiz.aspx?qid=214

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/RIVALRY+GONE+RETRO.-a083405224

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/221047-last-time-the-cincinnati-reds-beat-the-dodgers-in-los-angeles

Arnabdas (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to several of the others, this seems an extremely artificial "rivalry", created by MLB out of whole cloth just to allow them to add to their list of annual home and away rivalries. There is no natural or historical rivalry here. As far as geographical rivalry is concerned, the Tampa area and south Florida (Miami/Fort Lauderdale/Palm Beach) are not close (4-5 or more hours apart by car) and (as a life-long resident of south Florida, I can assure that) residents in the 2 areas don't consider themselves rivals - in fact, the other area is rarely considered at all, and when thought of, not in an adversarial way. Should there be a category for (or at least comment about) the "non-rivalry rivalries"? (Not sure what you would use for sources, but then there are no sources that demonstrate that this is a "real" rivalry rather than one invented by MLB.)108.74.28.81 (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I agree that it's not a real rivalry. It should be taken out because there's no history to it. As for the non-rivalry rivalries suggestion, I think it would be incredibly hard to source that. Plus, if we agree that they aren't rivalries then the section seems unnecessary.Ultimahero (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why all the sports rivalries need to be mentioned on this page. It's just too much info. For this page there should just be a short blurb about the rivalry itself and then any other issues should be discussed on the main page.Ultimahero (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the history of these two teams, I don't think this rivalry should be on this page. It's only notable because of the past few years. 2007, and 2008 were the only meaningful, competitive seasons between these teams. This section is based too much on recent history and doesn't belong here.Ultimahero (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article needs to be deleted...or at very least improved. It seemed to be notable for a bit, but there isn't enough notable information on the rivalry IMO. Arnabdas (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I think it was just a flair between two teams that were good at the same time. Two or three years of competitiveness doesn't merit a page.Ultimahero (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a Diamondbacks fan myself, I can absolutely say that the Dodgers and Rockies are our rivals, albeit the former is moreso than the latter. LA-Arizona has historically been a sports rivalry, so it was natural that the Dodgers and Dbacks would too when Arizona was added to the league in 1997-1998. It's more difficult for me to explain why the Rockies are a rival, though, other than that the two teams have butted heads rather frequently throughout each teams' short history. Brendan "Da Beejees" Julian 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Obsesseduscfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsesseduscfan (talk • contribs)

Well, I'm a Dodger fan and I would agree that that LA and ARI are rivals. However, I think the question to ask is whether or not these teams are SIGNIFICANT rivals. Surely we would say that every team within a division has a rivalry with every other team in the same division. But that doesn't inherently make each of those rivalries significant to MLB as a whole, do they? I don't really hear anyone clamoring about Mariners-A's, nor do I see Toronto-Baltimore making making big headlines outside of their respective markets. So you have to ask is ARI-LA or ARI-COL important to anyone outside those respective fanbases. And I would have to conclude that they are not. Further, as a Dodger fan I don't think I would put the Diamondbacks any higher than our fifth biggest rival, behind SF, NYY, SD, and ANA, in that order. (And even 5th might be to high, depending on where we place COL.) So I don't really think LA-ARI merits any mention on this list. Similarly, ARI-COL has virtually nothing to support it being on this list. I just don't see how those teams matter in terms of significant rivalries. I'm certainly open to suggestions, but I just don't see it.Ultimahero (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back I see that multiple rivalries have been removed due to some editors asserting that X is a significant rivalry and Y is not. Although WP:WEIGHT is important under WP:NEU, I would say WP:VER is also significant. To remove whole rivalries that are well documented in multiple reliable sources because some editors don't believe they are significant flies in the face of VER, and there should be some mention of all those rivalries.

To remove whole rivalries unilaterally does not keep with one of the main pillars of our editing community.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies in taking so long to respond; I've been out of town. Regarding the matter at hand, wouldn't you say that every MLB team has some level of rivalry with every other MLB team simply based on the fact that they have to compete with one another in order to win? But does that mean that there should be a listing of every possible match-up on this page? Certainly not. Rather, I would suggest that this entry is intended to inform readers of SIGNIFICANT rivalries. I doubt anyone looks up "MLB rivalries" because they're interested in Toronto-Houston or San Diego-Baltimore. Instead, they come to this page to read about the Yanks and the Sox or the Dodgers and Giants, etc. If you feel a particular rivalry should be included then I would ask what your standard is for determining whether a rivalry is significant or not.Ultimahero (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ultimately called for that article to be deleted, but for some reason a lot of people want to be all crazy about what was really a 2-5 year rivalry. If that's the case, I don't see anything supporting the fact that they are real rivals now. There should be thought about putting them in the historical context. The only reason I could suggest they still be considered rivals is their being in the same division, but that to me seems like a stretch. "Let's have an article about a rivalry that existed for 2 to 5 years that hasn't been relevant in over a decade just because they just happen to be in the same division" seems to be the only argument that anyone can be pro Braves- Mets about keeping it where it is. There is no difference between that and a Dodgers-Reds article in terms of notability except they both still happen to be in the same division. Arnabdas (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I saw it was not even listed. Arnabdas (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the Braves-Mets can really be considered an historical rivalry. Simply being competitive for two years (which is what I've contended in the discussion of this topic previously) did not make them a significant rivalry. Dodgers-Reds, however, were a significant rivalry throughout the 70's and 80's, so at least two decades. As I've argued before, they've had eight close 1/2 seasons plus a playoff battle and a perfect game thrown by Cincinnati versus LA. So I don't think that ATL-NYM qualifies.Ultimahero (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added several new rivalries because I didn't think there was enough rivalries so I added all of the interleague rivalries, Indians-Tigers (Which is one of the most underrated rivalries in baseball and has a long history). Braves-Mets, Mets-Phillies (How can that not be on the article?) And Brewers-Cubs. I added rivalries because I know Ultimahero only wants significant rivalries but I think that there are more rivalries in MLB that this article has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.63.104 (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how these rivalries deserve to be mentioned on this page. They must be significant beyond one isolated fan base to be on this page. I'm not saying other rivalries can't be added, but many of these have been discussed here before and I have laid out this criteria many times. If you want to add something please talk about it first and explain why it matters. Also, there's no set number of rivalries that this page should have. So simply asserting that there aren't enough is not a valid argument. Thanks.Ultimahero (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some rivalries that should have been deleted such as Indians-Tigers (Ill admit i'm an Indians fan) but here is what I think needs to happen. I think you should add Mets-Phillies which I realize you think isn't significant but I think it is notable and gets plenty of attention. Angels-Dodgers which I think has the significance of all the other interleague rivalries on here .(please explain to me why that doesn't belong on the page) And I think you should move Dodgers-Yankees to historical rivalries because the don't play every year in interleague and I think it is a historical rivalry because they have played in World Series matchups in the 50's 60's and 80's (Correct me if i'm wrong),they don't play each other in interleague every yearand the Dodgers aren't in Brooklyn any more so those are the changes that I think needs to happen. Also one more thing, what other rivalries do you think we could add. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.63.104 (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. :) As for Mets-Phillies, can you provide the reasons why you think it's notable? I've talked about the rivalry before, especially on their page. I'd be happy to restate my reasons, but I'd like to know what you're thinking, if that's alright. Dodgers and Angles doesn't have any real history to it that makes it significant to baseball as a whole. (Whit-Sox-Cubs is famous for the level of animosity between the two clubs as well as both teams being among the oldest in the sport. Yankees-Mets and Giants-A's have played in World Series against one another, a very big milestone in any rivalry. ANA-LA just hasn't accomplished anything on that level. And I'm saying this as a Dodgers fan who lives in southern California.) LA-NY being made historical is fair. It has been a long time since anything important has happened. I'm not sure at the moment what other rivalries I'd add, I'm still think about it.

So, is it fair to ask that any new rivalries (PHI-NYM, for example,) be left out while we discuss them? Again, I'm not opposed

to adding things, I just don't think it makes sense to put them in before any discussion.Ultimahero (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC) As for Mets-Phillies here is why I think it deserves to be on the list. The two teams got into several bench clearing brawls in the 80's. The two fan bases hate each other. They have had their moments when both teams were in contention (when the Mets collapsed in 07 and the Phillies made the playoffs). I hear about the rivalry a lot as a fan of the Cleveland Indians and follows the A.L Central. I know I you deleted Brewers-Cubs because it is primarily geographic and Braves-Mets because of realignment but the Mets and the Phillies have been in the same division since 1965. I think New York and Philadelphia have enough a history to belong on the page. Read Eagles-Giants and Flyers-Rangers and compare the Mets-Phillies significance to those rivalries and see if Mets-Phillies has as much history as those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.63.104 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not too familiar with the brawls of the 80's, so I admit that could make a big difference. Can you give me a list of them or sources about them? As far as fans hating each other, I don't think that means a lot. As a Dodger fan, I hate every team in our division but I recognize that most of that doesn't mean anything outside of my own fanbase. Fans have a tendency to overreact and claim that their particular rivalry is the biggest and best, regardless of what it means for baseball as a whole. (Again, my criteria for this article is that a rivalry must impact baseball as a whole.) As for the rivalry between NY and Philadelphia as a whole, I don't think it matters that there are rivalries from other sports. I hate the Giants but have nothing against the SF 49er's. Just because they're in the same city doesn't make me dislike them. (As a Cleveland fan, you probably dislike the Tigers, Twins and White Sox since they are your division rivals. But does that make you hate and actively root against, say, the Detroit Lions or the Chicago Bears or the Minnesota Vikings, etc? Probably not.) Finally, while the two teams have been in the same division for a long time, they have really had much competition between the two. Outside of 2007-2008, can you name any season in which there has been much of a race for the division (close 1/2 finishes)? I don't believe any exist. So I don't think two years is enough.Ultimahero (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the above section I was asked what rivalries I thought might be important enough to be added to this page. So, I just wanted to list a few that I thought could be promising. These are just preliminary thoughts, so if anyone has any info then please tell me what you think. The two I'm currently looking at, and need to research more, are Yankees-Oriels and Angels-Royals.Ultimahero (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the Angels and Royals, I thought that maybe they had enough competitive seasons over a short period of time to justify placement on this list. However, after further review I don't think enough is there. They had five close 1/2 finishes within 5 games of each other from 1978-1985 (an eight year period.) But there was nothing before or after. Further, neither team was particularly dominant, as only once did one of the seasons listed above garner a World Series appearance (Royals in 1985). Finally, from what I can tell there was never much heat or disfavor between the two clubs. (If you look on each individual page neither team mentions the other.) So I think this has to be classified as two teams just happening to be competitive at the same time. Ultimahero (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there's merit for the Baltimore-New York Rivalry. I count 8 close 1/2 finishes between the two clubs (and unless one of the teams absolutely collapses then 2012 will be the 9th.) That's pretty close to the fabled Red-Sox/Yankees rivalry, which has eleven close 1/2 finishes. They matched up in the 1996 ALCS, and Babe Ruth played for the Oriels before being sold to the Red Sox, who sold him to the Yankees. (Everyone just remembers that last part but forgets his origins with Baltimore.) So I think there's enough here to deserve a mention. Any thoughts?Ultimahero (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of some more rivalries to add that I would like to consider. Yankees-Orioles, Reds-Pirates (played in 5 NLCS series) Astros-Braves (met in the playoffs like 6 times) and Indians-White Sox 11 1/2 Finishes.

For Orioles-Yankees I think this is a rivalry because they have 9 1/2 finishes, 2 playoff series against each other, The Yankees started in Baltimore before relocating to New York and Babe Ruth was born in Baltimore and played minor league baseball in Baltimore. That is a great rivalry that doesn't get attention.

For Indians-White sox They have eleven 1/2 finishes which is as much as the famed Yankees-Red Sox rivalry and other history in the rivalry is the Albert Belle cork bat incident and that he bolted to Chicago via free agency ALA Lebron James. The only thing lacking in this rivalry is that it hardly gets any attention at all and there isn't much sources that say it is a rivalry.

For Reds-Pirates this is a playoff rivalry in the 70's 80's and 90's when they met in the NLCS 5 times. There isn't much of a rivalry in the NL Central era due to the failures of the Pirates. I need to research the Pre 1970's history between the two teams.

For Astros-Braves they have met in the NLDS 6 times which is more than anyone else. I saw two sources one from the Houston Cronicle in 1999 and one from MLB.COM from chipper jones's retirement on him saying the Astros were rivals of the Braves. Type in Astros-Braves rivalry on google and you'll see he sources. This might be in historical rivalries because the rivalry has been dormant since 2005 when the two teams last met in the playoff and that the Astros are now in the A.L

Please Tell me what you think. :) CleCol99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’d agree with you on Baltimore-New York. I’ve mentioned that myself, and I think that’s a good one to consider.

I’m not as sure about Chicago-Cleveland. I count 10 1/2 finishes, not eleven: 1919, 1929, 1959, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2005. I could very easily have missed one, so let me know if I did. And, while ten is still not bad, I see two problems. 1) A few of these weren't close finishes. In 1996 the Indians finished 14 games ahead and in 1999 they finished 22 games ahead. And since the spirit of measuring 1/2 finishes is, at least in my opinion, an attempt to measure direct competitiveness, we can’t really count those years as being competitive. Heck, even in 1998 the Indians finished nine games ahead of a sub-.500 White Sox club, so I think that might be pushing it too. So not counting the three I mentioned, I see seven close 1/2 finishes. And while that’s not bad, it leads to the second problem. 2) The timeline isn't that great. There are two close finishes in 1919 and 1920, then nothing for the next 30 years. The White Sox consistently struggled from 1921 through 1950, finishing above .500 only eight times in that stretch (and only twice reaching 3rd place, never higher) while the Indians enjoyed a high level of sustained success. (They finished above .500 22 times in that 30 year stretch and won a World Series in 1948.) Both clubs were successful in the 50’s, although Cleveland was consistently better and both mostly chasing the Yankees, who dominated that decade. They had one more close 1/2 finish in 1959, before the Indians would have a turn at struggling throughout the 60’s. Then in 1969 the teams were separated into separate divisions, being irrelevant to each other over the next 25 years. After joining the AL Central in 1994, they've had 4 reasonably competitive years: 1994, 1997, 2000, and 2005. I just think things are too spaced out, primarily because of Chicago’s struggles from 1921-1950 as well as playing in separate divisions, for there to be a good rivalry. I'm gonna keep looking at the other two you mentioned.Ultimahero (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm familiar with the corked bat incident, but was that considered a big deal from a rivalry standpoint? Did the White Sox see it as an attack on them, or was it a guy with a long history of problems doing the same old thing? Likewise, did his signing with Chicago matter to the Indians in the sense of personal betrayal? If so, were they upset because he signed with the White Sox of all teams, or just angry that he left at all?Ultimahero (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Reds-Pirates, I don’t see any 1/2 finishes between the two teams prior to the introduction of divisions. And while they did have 5 NLCS matchups, I’m not sure if that was considered a rivalry. That is a tremendous amount of success over a relatively short time, so I think we’d have to find sources showing that this was considered a rivalry by the clubs. If the sources are there I’d support it being put into the historical rivalries section.Ultimahero (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the ample history between the Pirates and Reds, I think this matchup might need its own section soon. Especially since they're about to meet in this year's NLDS, which marks the sixth time they've faced each other in the postseason. BZA99 (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I count 5 NLDS matchups between the Braves and Astros, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2004, and 2005. Please let me know what the sixth is if I’m missing it. NLDS matchups aren’t as impressive as LCS meetings, so I’m inclined to put this below Reds-Pirates. I’m not a believer in either the Mets-Braves or Cardinals-Astros rivalries, but during these stretches the Mets were both competitive (1999 and 2000) and the Cardinals and Astros were both competitive in 2004 and 2005. So I’d have to suspect that those would outshine this particular matchup from both sides. If Chipper said they’re rivals that might give it a little more weight, but we’d have to see the quote and in context. Can you provide a link? But I still think there would need to be more. At the moment I’m leaning against this one.Ultimahero (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a rivalry page for the Indians White Sox rivalry and working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a page to a different part of Wikipedia is not a valid criteria for putting the rivalry in here.Ultimahero (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is merit for this rivalry to be considered to be on this page. I count 8 1/2 finishes and 3 playoff series against each other. Many Indians fans consider the Yankees their main rival over the Tigers,White Sox and the Reds. In the 1940's and 1950's when the Yankees had a dynasty the Indians were the only team who could stop them as they won 2 A.L pennants and a World Series pennant and were the closest to the Yankees during their dynasty. And if you think the rivalry was dead during the lowly period for the Indians another lesser known part of the rivalry is that the late George Steinbrenner is from Cleveland and tried to purchase the Indians before he purchased the Yankees. As an Indians fan in my opinion the rivalry vs the Yankees has never died or stopped. Other notable moments in the rivalry is that Babe Ruth hit his 500th homer against the Tribe and Joe Dimaggio's 56th game hitting streak ended against the Indians. Jim Abbott also pitched a no hitter against the Indians.Also in 1920 there was the infamous Ray Chapman-Joe Mays incident where Ray Chapman died. The Indians won the A.L pennant that year and the Yankees finished in 3rd place but were only 3 games behind. Also in 1948 when the Indians won the A.L pennant and the Yankees were in 3rd place but only 2.5 games behind the Tribe. Also in the 1990's when the Yankees had their most recent dynasty in 1995-2001 the Yankees won five A.L pennants and 4 World Series title the Indians won 2 A.L pennants and played in 2 playoff series. Also in 2007 the Indians won a playoff series against the Yankees. Also in 2011 the two teams got into a benches clearing brawl. I think the rivalry has the same problems as the Yankees-Orioles rivalry that they ARE good rivalries but are always overshadowed by the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. I will provide links about the rivalry below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geocal5 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Rivalry: http://jeffrsabo.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/yankees-and-indians historic-rivalry-between-the-two-teams Top new york rivalry cities Cleveland is number 5: http://unclemikesmusings.blogspot.com/2012/02/top-10-new-york-rivalry-cities.html Rivalry Ranked: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/737551-mlb-power-rankings-the-7-greatest-rivalries-in-baseball. Link:http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1696&dat=19980614&id=7A0bAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DEgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5069,1818336 Rivalry ranked again: http://bigpapadaddy.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/best-baseball-rivalries/ Top Games: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/5-greatest-games-yankees-indians-history-fans-choice-031000389--mlb.html Rivalry ranked again: http://unclemikesmusings.blogspot.com/2011/05/top-10-baseball-rivalries.html Rivalry Ranked: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21043-diamond-cutter-top-ten-mlb-rivalries

Those are the sources I found

Clecol 99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this one. Of the sources listed, the first is a blog which is generally not reliable. The same applies to the second, which is also about city rivalries and not baseball in particular. The third is bleacher report article which is notoriously unreliable. The fourth is a paper, so it's a better source, but its focused on the Yankees wanting revenge for 1997; it's not particularly wide in scope. The fifth is a blog. The sixth isn't asserting a rivalry, it's just ranking games between two old ball clubs. You could do that with any of the old teams. The seventh is a blog and the eighth is bleacher report. So of the eight sources, half are blogs and another 25% are from a site with a poor reputation. Of the last two, one isn't about the rivalry and the last focuses in a single year. Not the best group of sources.

Second, there's not a lot of history here. There's a few close finishes in 1921 and 1926, but the Yankees dominated everyone during that period. It's hard to see how the Indians are their biggest threats during that era as opposed to one team that happened to have a few good years here and there. The only thing I see that you might be able to point to is 1951-1956 when the two teams finished 1/2. But even then the Yankees won every year but one. Honestly, I don't think the Yankees think much of Cleveland. When a team has been as dominate as New York has, most other teams are going to single them out. But even if hate exists its probably pretty onesided.Ultimahero (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your opinions on a couple things: First, on the city rankings Cleveland was number 5 chiefly due to the rivalry between the Indians and the Yankees, As I am a Cleveland fan mainly Indians and Browns who I study the history of the only REAL rivalry is between the Indians and Yankees.As a Browns fan there are little rivalries between the Browns and the Jets and Giants. I disagree with your opinion saying that there is not a lot of history. You didn't mention any of the other history in the games. Joe Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak ended against the Tribe, Babe Ruth's 500th Home Run was against the Tribe. Jim Abbott's no hitter was against the Tribe. Frank Robinson's "player manager game" was against the Yankees in 1975. George Steinbrenner tried to purchase the Indians before he purchased the Yankees. And you forgot the 3 playoff series. Sandy Alomar's home run vs Mariano Rivera. The Chuck Knoblauch incident in 1998 but the Yankees won the series that year and the Bug Game in 2007. ThanksClecol99 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Clecol99[reply]

The city ranking article is A) a blog, which makes it highly unreliable from the outset. Even if we disagree on the content, the simple fact that it's a blog makes it very difficult to use. In addition it is B) intended to rank the rivals by city, not individual teams. You can say, "As I am a Cleveland fan mainly Indians and Browns who I study the history of the only REAL rivalry is between the Indians and Yankees", but that doesn't mean much. The source you are quoting from doesn't single out the baseball rivalry or even indicate it's the primary rivalry between these two cities. For you to say that Indians-Yankees it the only REAL rivalry is to dismiss the very source you provide.

I didn't mention DiMaggio's streak, Ruth's 500th home run, etc. because I don't see how they're relevant. It seems to me that you're just pulling random stats out of hat. Show me sources that indicate that these issues are more significant BECAUSE they happened against the Indians and then we'll have something. But I don't think there's much there. And I didn't forget the 3 playoff series. I don't think they mean anything. Back to back playoff series in 1997 and 1998 doesn't mean anything. Show me the Yankees had a particular dislike of the Indians and we can talk. Show me how in 2007 the Yanks were pumped to play the Tribe and we may have something. But it seems to me all this is a case of a fanbase latching themselves onto the most successful team in MLB history. But you know what? Most teams are going to see the Yankees as their biggest rivals. That's what happens when you're as dominant as they are.Ultimahero (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the playoff series not mean anything? I think that this is one of the main contributors to the rivalry. You said that you approved Yankees-Orioles? This has only ONE less 1/2 finish and has more playoff series. Clecol9975.187.63.104 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Playoff series in general absolutely matter, and the meetings between the Yanks and the Tribe are certainly a factor in determining the level of their rivalry. However, I don't think these 3 playoff meetings mean much because there's virtually no history between the two clubs. Like I explained above, the Yankees and Indians finished 1/2 in 1921 and 1926 then had nothing between them for the next twenty-five years. Then there was a competitive stretch of 6 years between 1951 and 1956 when they finished 1/2. After that, forty years of silence. So after forty+ years of not mattering to each other they meet up in the 1997 ALDS. My question to you is do you think that the Yankees were motivated to play the Indians in particular? Were they more pumped up to play the Tribe then they would've been against any other team? In 1998, there was probably more feeling as the Yanks sought revenge. But after beating the Indians that year and then not being relevant to one another for another decade, were they pumped up to play each other in 2007? Probably not. Show me sources that say the Yankees were motivated to play the Indians in particular in 2007 and then we'll have something. But I just don't see it.

You mentioned the Orioles but the reality is the Orioles have much more to stand on. As Division rivals, they have had a consistent level of competition between them, particularly in the 1970's and 1990's. They've had ten 1/2 finishes over that span (9 if we don't count the first half of the 1981 season). And compare 2012 to 2007 from a Yankees perspective. In 2007, they play an Indians team who hasn't been a factor to them all year. In 2012, they fight off the Orioles all year and barely finish 2 games ahead to clinch the division. They then have to turn right back around and play that same Orioles team in the ALDS, needing 5 games to win. Which do you think the Yankees felt more animosity towards? My money is on Baltimore.

Yes, three playoff series is something, but do you realize you many teams the Yankees have played at least three times in the playoffs? Here's the list: Giants, Cardinals, Reds, Dodgers, Braves, Royals, Athletics, Mariners, Rangers, Indians, Red Sox, Angels, Twins, and Tigers. Fourteen clubs. Almost half of all the teams have played the Yanks as much as the Indians. When you're as dominant as New York has been most other teams will see you as their big rival. But show me from New York's viewpoint how the Indians in particular stand out. Cause I don't see how they're anything more than one of the fourteen.Ultimahero (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of the Birds is baseball rivalry between three MLB clubs—the Baltimore Orioles, Toronto Blue Jays and St. Louis Cardinals

• Baltimore Orioles vs. Toronto Blue Jays
• Baltimore Orioles vs. St. Louis Cardinals
• Toronto Blue Jays vs. St. Louis Cardinals

In the proverbial rivalry, the only real history is between the Orioles and the Cardinals who clashed in the World Series before the Browns became the Orioles. The Blue Jays first played the Cardinals in 2003. Chris Carpinter played for both Toronto before signing a free agent deal with St. Louis. In N

It appears the above content is being disputed. I don't want this to be come an edit war, so lets discuss it here. This isn't something we just "made up" Zoozle102 (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For starters: Notable pitcher Pat Hentgen. He played for both the Orioles and Blue Jays. Zoozle102 (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is essentially a copy of Battle of the Birds which is already under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Birds. Initiating a discussion here is redundant. -- Whpq (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the other discussion will determine keep or delete. I tried merging it here. Zoozle102 (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD can include merge as one possible outcome. -- Whpq (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD outcome was delete, though. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing in any of these matchups that warrant an inclusion here. And if it was already discussed elsewhere with the solution to simply remove it then there's really nothing left to say.Ultimahero (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the same editor who tried to add this before is back after the month of protection, and since he's used three IP addresses to try to add the content today, I've protected the article for a further three months. —C.Fred (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Yankees–Blue Jays rivalry listed here? This doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy, and it's major scope creep to list every pairing on this page, which is what seems to be happening. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take the lack of comment as no objection to removing it? —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not notable at all.Ultimahero (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a difficult time understanding what this article is meant to be if something like the rivalry between the Houston Astros and Texas Rangers (the Lone Star Series) has been removed. Clecol99's explanation for removal was that it is "NOT SIGNIFICANT", however the general consensus appears to be that it is notable because there is an article that has existed since 2005 with many editors contributions. However, even if the subject matter was not considered notable as per WP:NNC: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article".

Lastly, and most importantly, this article is titled as "Major League Baseball rivalries", and the Lone Star Series IS a Major League Baseball rivalry. Therefore, it is just flat-out confusing to not have this info in the article. What is your take on this? Brian Reading (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it has a stand-alone article tells me that it's significant enough that we shouldn't need this discussion. Plus, there's a trophy awarded to the series winner—which I think is unique among the rivalries listed. It should be restored to the body of the article instead of just as a "see also" listing. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no legitimate objection, I've now restored this content. Thanks for weighing in. Brian Reading (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article does not necessarily mean that it is a significant rivalry because any fan can create ANY RIVALRY for any two teams. If a Padres-Nationals or an Indians-Astros page is created does that automatically make it a significant rivalry? Probably not. Also remember, the main point of this page is to have rivalries that are significant to baseball as a whole. I don't think this rivalry qualifies as that. Clecol99Clecol99 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your analysis, the Yankees–Orioles rivalry also fails to demonstrate significance to baseball as a whole. Further, that section was unsigned, so I've removed it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sir. Clecol99, fortunately that is not how Wikipedia works. Any fan made article cannot simply be made to exist. These sorts of things typically get weeded out within a fairly short amount of time. You of all editors should understand this, as it appears that you had created articles of a supposed Indians-White Sox rivalry and a Browns-Lions rivalry that were deleted in that manner. In contrast, the Lone Star Series is not simply an existing article, but also a well documented subject that is supported by many third-party reliable sources. You may not personally feel that this rivalry is significant, however the name of this article is not "Major League Baseball rivalries deemed by Clecol99 to be significant to baseball as a whole". Furthermore, again please acknowledge what is acceptable content in WP:NNC, respect consensus, and above all else, please do your best not to edit war with us. Thanks! Brian Reading (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the first person to say that this page is only for significant rivalries on this page. See all of Ultimahero's edits above. He says the same thing as well. And if this article was for what you think it is, than every single matchup would be on this list. Clecol99 (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Yankees-Orioles is significant because it has nine 1-2 finishes, two playoff meetings, a major brawl in 1998 and Babe Ruth played for the Orioles before he went to the Yankees. Rangers-Astros has no 1-2 finishes, no playoff finishes and no notable moments in the rivalry. Clecol99 (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clecol99, you and I obviously have different personal concepts of notability. For example, those concepts that you list above don't make a rivalry even exist, much less appear notable to me. Thankfully, Wikipedia clearly defines what notability actually is, so we do not have to rely on our own personal definitions. I will continue to point you to Wikipedia:Notability until you read and address it. There it notes that notability is determined by significant coverage by reliable independent sources. The Lone Star Series obviously meets this criteria. Regardless, there is something also in that guideline that is even more applicable here. It goes on to state that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". That means that even non-notable rivalries (even though the Lone Star Series is already objectively notable by Wikipedia's guideline) can be included with simple due weight. I wholeheartedly urge you to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, because it helps us to speed these kinds of discussions along. Please get back to us when you have something to say in response to this guideline. Thanks! Brian Reading (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lone Star Series, as noted above, meets the notability criteria. The Yankees–Orioles would not meet it for a stand-alone article. It also fails WP:Verifiability, because nowhere was it shown that significant coverage has been given to the rivalry. The Red Sox–Yankees rivalry, for instance, gets coverage about the tradition every time the teams play—and even gets a when they're not playing. Consider, for instance, the Braves and Brewers. It will be mentioned that the Braves used to play in Milwaukee when the press writes about a series, but it's a side note, not the focus of coverage it is for Red Sox–Yankees. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianreading, you seem to think that if an article has a page that it should be included on the rivals page. There ARE other rivalries with independent pages that are not on the list.(Mets-Phillies, Mets-Braves, Cubs-Brewers) So should I include those rivalries on the list. The other rivalries with pages (see above sentence) were not on the page because they were not deemed "significant". The "significant rivalry" criteria that I have used to say the Astros-Rangers rivalry has been used for over three years on this page. I think your criteria is different because yours is more policy related and the criteria used the past three years by Ultimahero for this page was more baseball history related. Thanks Clecol99 (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom, then are these rivalries significant? What reliable source deems them significant?

If there's not a reliable secondary source that we're using as a guideline, then this is starting to look like a list with such subjective criteria that it may need sent to AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like those rivalries involving the Mets should certainly be included because they exist and are well-documented! Thanks a lot for letting us know about these! However, the Brewers-Cubs article appears to have some issues, and little sources. I have taken the liberty of being bold and adding the Mets rivalries, but have abstained from adding the Brewers-Cubs rivalry. If what you say is true, I would wholeheartedly object to the way Ultimahero has been editing this article, and have this same conversation. Issues of content inclusion have been handled for a long time with Wikipedia's well-discussed and documented guidelines, and I cannot see why they should not be applied here. Brian Reading (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we have reached a resolution after adding the Mets rivalries. Thanks Clecol99 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://blog.mlive.com/cutoffman/2010/04/is_twins-tigers_a_true_rivalry.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1325526-renewed-rivalry-between-baltimore-orioles-ny-yankees-is-great-for-baseball http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/7784851/bombers-rays-continue-develop-rivalry-surpassed-red-sox http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/texas-rangers-los-angeles-angels-of-anaheim-albert-pujols-yu-darvish-mike-napoli-new-hot-rivalry-in-baseball-030212. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I call on the editors who revert the new content to WP:AGF on ip editors and not immediately revert content they feel is trivial. An editor with a long history of editing this page reverted despite an effort to cite sources. Please do not edit war with anons. Thanks for your patience. Fred.K 19:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.47.68.226 (talk)

This was more a conflict of interest than an edit war. Two out of three of the matchup were:

• backed up by sources
• featured in more than postseason.

I think the content has some credibility. 172.58.225.19 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC) 172.58.225.19 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this page is protected. 208.54.37.128 (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge the assessment this is original research. This rivalry happened in the 2000s and resulted in three postseason series in which the Angels won two of three of them. Eddie 23:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this page is original research. Many of these sections have no evidence of actual rivalries. The more significant ones (such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry) have their own page with extensive explanations and sources supporting the rivalries. The smaller ones do not. These significant ones belong here is some form. The likes of Chicago White Sox vs. Detroit Tigers and Atlanta Braves vs. Washington Nationals do not have any support for the claim of a rivalry. These sections are just a list of separate discrete events that that happened involving the two clubs. There is no overarching sources that bring them together as a rivalry. Even in those notable rivalries the listing of everyday occurrences is just OR padding. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should go through this and trim. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a look at this, I propose cutting all of them except for those that have their own pages, namely Yankees–Red Sox, Astros–Rangers, Braves–Mets, Mets–Phillies, Brewers–Cubs, Cardinals–Cubs, Dodgers–Giants, Phillies–Pirates, Angels–Dodgers, Athletics–Giants, Cardinals–Royals, Cubs–White Sox, Indians–Reds, Marlins–Rays, Mets–Yankees (Subway Series), Nationals–Orioles, Dodgers–Yankees, Giants–Yankees, Athletics–Phillies, and Blue Jays–Expos. Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a reasonable approach. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If cut so radically then the equivalence itself should be explained or at least clearly indicated in the article, presumably phrased in a way that is not too self-referential. Readers should be informed that whatever appears here (embedded list?) is simply condensed versions of full articles on the identical rivalries, and also of course that some other matches may be deemed rivalries.

Anyway the notion that interleague play annually features MLB rivalries needs to be retained. Presuming no change in the other article, somehow Interleague play#Geographical matchups / Natural rivals needs to be referenced and linked as a main article on this presently important sense of rivalry. The easiest way is for this article to retain some Interleague section here, with a {{main article|Article#Section}} hatnote link to the other; thus displayed as:

Main article: Article § Section

--P64 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Blue Jays–Expos necessarily requires a section; they did not have an on-field rivalry in the usual sense. They were business rivals, as covered in the Expos article, but covering that aspect would again open up this article to a wide variety of competitive groups. isaacl (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think this article needs improvement, since a good chunk of it is WP:OR. But it may be wiser to see how much of this can be referenced, and then remove whatever cannot be cited. Not that we have to copy, but the National Hockey League rivalries page is pretty similar to this, although much of it is being challenged. Garchy (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted some of the more egregious entries. Some others will require discussion, or attempts to reference as suggested by Garchy. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From this discussion, a user suggested that the rivalry between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Texas Rangers can be added to this article. There is more than enough material to discuss this rivalry, which began during the 2015 ALDS and continued into 2016 with the brawl involving those two teams in Texas. It would be good to discuss this rivalry. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss it, but I'm not aware of any sources that call it a "rivalry". It seems like WP:RECENTISM to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key issue is that there is no clear definition for "rivalry" and sports journalism sources will use it to cover a broad set of cases, from longstanding competition between teams to the latest pennant race of the day. The Jays–Rangers interactions seem similar to many other situations where some bad blood has arisen between teams, and not a rivalry in the true sense of the word. isaacl (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would do well to limit this to rivalries that already have their own article, which would presume that they have demonstrated WP:GNG. Otherwise, too much short-term or WP:OR "rivalries" get added here.—Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to be a rivalry I have many sources here that call it a rivalry. The question is how many sources do you need? These two teams hate each other.^{[1] [2] [3][4]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Cox (talk • contribs) 13:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a "rivalry"? How long does it take before we can call it one? This seems to me to be some bad blood between two players that has extended into some beanball. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order for it to be a notable rivalry it needs to occur for a decent length of time, certainly just not two seasons. Spanneraol (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A rivalry isn't two teams not getting along, though. A sports rivalry is characterized by a competition to be recognized for superiority, typically encompassing fans, players, and organizations. isaacl (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, sports rivalries are possible between teams from differing divisions that don't regularly play each other. For example, in basketball, the Celtics–Lakers rivalry and the Cavaliers–Warriors rivalry developed from many NBA Finals appearances against each other. In football, you have the Raiders–Steelers rivalry and the 49ers–Giants rivalry that developed decades ago when these teams met consistently in the playoffs. And in hockey, the Red Wings and Avalanche shared a nice rivalry during their Stanley Cup-winning days of the 90s. Now, we must look at how many sources call this a "rivalry" between and the Jays and Rangers, and how long will this go on? Considering all this only started two years ago during the 2015 ALDS, I'd perhaps lean towards giving it some more time, to see how things develop.Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 07:29, June 21, 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that the article's lead is about expansion and divisions, barely mentioning "rivalries" at all. It provides little information on why teams might become rivals. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: perhaps there are documented sources for a rivalry. Teams throwing at each other's hitters, however, isn't a rivalry per se, and that's all that's discussed in the section. Perhaps any interested parties can uncover some accounts of inter-fan competition or other competition off the field that are hallmarks of a rivalry? isaacl (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources within there from reputable sources that go over the "rivalry", using the word rivalry. I supported those references with others that correlate to each specific incident (to establish notability). I'll take a look further to see what more I can uncover about the rivalry (through reliable press), focusing on fan interaction, but I encourage others to help as well! Garchy (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, sports journalism will use the term "rivalry" to cover a very broad set of circumstances, and I feel we should be using it in a more narrow sense. Nonetheless I welcome evidence of actual inter-team rivalry, and not just the usual competition between two teams in the same division or league. isaacl (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dividing line for such things is when there is overwhelming usage of the term, that can be widely found in multiple sources. Everything I've seen refers to a rivalry. What other information are you looking for? I feel that most information you will find on a sports rivalry is going to naturally be covered by sports journalists. I understand what you're saying - a passing reference to a "rivalry" does not make it so. In this case, there is overwhelming support in the press, and multiple on and off-field incidences to support this assertion (hence why I also heavily cited within the section). Happy to hear other thoughts though. The "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim vs. Boston Red Sox" has a lot less going for it - I'm not pulling a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but rather wondering why that hasn't been removed! Garchy (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed BOS/LAA. I missed it. It has less going for it than BOS/TB. I'm also not sure BOS/TB belongs, but with the sources added I won't take it out unless that's the consensus here. Things got heated between them for a few years but that's not necessarily enough to be a "rivalry". The question should be, would a standalone rivalry page survive AfD? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it would survive AFD if an article were created on that topic - but this isn't a list article, which requires a standalone article first. I think the question should be does it pass WP:GNG, and whether the section is supported by reliable sources. There is an article about the rivalry that was published in the last month, I can't remember if I already added it in or if I still need to do that! Also, if it is kept, it should be in less of a "list/incident" form as Isaacl has mentioned above - I certainly agree. Garchy (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few key issues: nominally, all teams in a division are rivals, and so newspapers invariably describe rivalries amongst all divisional teams. This is also due to the promotional role of sports journalism, which results in any angle for competition or conflict being played up for dramatic effect. Without discounting for these effects, this article would just be a compendium of every pair of teams in each division, as they all get described as having rivalries. This has the unfortunate effect of de-emphasizing the historic long-standing rivalries in MLB. I lean towards Bagumba's suggestion of limiting the included rivalries to those with their own article. (The discussion of a list article vs non-list article is a bit of a red herring: not all list articles require its entries to have separate articles, and although not formatted like many of them, this article is a list of rivalries and so is basically a list article.) It may not be an ideal criterion, but it is a practical one. isaacl (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Pearson Cup is a historic rivalry between the Montreal Expos and the Toronto Blue Jays that lasted until the Expos moved to Washington. It should be added, especially given that it has an article and is notable (and is the baseball version of the Canadiens–Maple Leafs rivalry in the National Hockey League). Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done though not by me. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Major League Baseball rivalries. 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/20140506182158/http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/2012/05/rangers-angels-rivalry-how-did.html/ to http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/2012/05/rangers-angels-rivalry-how-did.html/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/print.jspymd%3D20070620%26content_id%3D2038439%26vkey%3Dnews_cws%26fext%3D.jsp%26c_id%3Dcws%26affiliateId%3DCommentWidget

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this article would be enhanced if it included a list of cross-town World Series -- that is, World Series played between teams from the same metropolitan area. Such intra-urban competitions are an aspect of MLB rivalries that would be of significant interest to readers of this article. It's not just the storied rivalries between the Yankees and their former New York City competitors, the Giants and the Dodgers. It's also the other cross-town rivalries that have been immortalized in World Series history. What would be best, I think, would be a table summarizing these World Series. I therefore suggest that my recent addition, here, be restored to the article. If there are any concerns about this content being unsourced, I'm sure it would be easy to find references for this information, which is not in any way controversial or obscure. (Pinging @Muboshgu:, but of course all interested editors are encouraged to give their opinions.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have an opinion either way? If no one objects to this idea, I'll re-add the new section soon, unless someone else does it first. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more relevant for World Series#Cross-town Series.—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bagumba. Your table doesn't account for all of the rivarly World Series matchups (1985 comes to mind), and adds one (1944) that isn't mentioned on this page at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not a bad idea. Let's try it on for size, like so. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Major League Baseball rivalries. 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/20111027191338/http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-10/sports/29758562_1_red-sox-sox-territory-yankees-fans to http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-10/sports/29758562_1_red-sox-sox-territory-yankees-fans
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714103810/http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050707&content_id=1119893&vkey=news_phi&fext=.jsp&c_id=phi to http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050707&content_id=1119893&vkey=news_phi&fext=.jsp&c_id=phi

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add a Yankees-Rays rivalry? especially after what happened in the ALDS last week Southbronxbombers (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. A real rivalry is one that has historical basis not just a regular division matchup. Spanneraol (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these edits: as I discussed earlier, a sports rivalry is characterized by a competition to be recognized for superiority, typically encompassing fans, players, and organizations. Times when teams met in the playoffs, or went from one team to another do not in themselves constitute a rivalry. I suggest that these edits be reverted. isaacl (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I think the only rivalries that should be included are historical ones that occur over a very long time.. and not just ones that are typical division battles or that faced each other a few times in the playoffs over five years or some such. Spanneraol (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no other comments, then I will proceed with the proposed reversion. isaacl (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will proceed with reverting the section in question. isaacl (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgers hate the Astros more than the Giants right now. This ain't gonna cool down for a while. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 17:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Border Battle. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 15#Border Battle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we consider adding Yankees vs. Guardians as a rivalry? A documentary called "War on the Diamond" was released a few years ago and it detailed the century-long rivalry between New York and Cleveland, from the Ray Chapman beaning incident to the pennant race of the 1940s-1950s and later on their postseason matchups of the 1990s-2020s.--Ralphierce (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add Pictures or other media to certain sections of the rivalries? PontiacAurora (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be opposed to such an addition as this is designed to be a list and brief summaries. Pictures and media are more appropriate on the individual rivalry pages. Frank Anchor 14:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Major League Baseball which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]