Talk:Mets–Yankees rivalry

Page Creation

I just created this stub. We obviously should expand it. I think it is a topic worth noting seeing how there are rivalries of other teams, including the Mets and Braves. These teams playing are one of the biggest reasons why Interleague play proponents exist. When they do play in the regular season, it is as if both teams treat it as a playoff series. Arnabdas 16:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Section Ideas

I did a lot to improve it, but it is still far from good. I was wondering what else could we add? Maybe a list of players that have been on both teams? Famous New Yorkers choosing one team over the other? Definitely some of the incidents, such as the Piazza-Clemens tet a tet, should be mentioned...I just don't remember them all. Arnabdas 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

People with Both Teams

I think we should mention people whom have played or managed (or both) for both teams. I have to figure out how to do a table, but if someone can do that please edit and contribute. Arnabdas 17:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The table seems to be missing both Karim Garcia, Shane Spencer, and Armando Benitez and is probably missing more. The idea of a table might be overkill. Tjrover (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the table is a cool idea, but you're right, there's definitely more missing. Claudell Washington and Gerald Williams are two more. Oh, yeah, and Josias Manzanillo and Rafael Santana... ;-) 24.189.238.109 (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use team logos

The logos have been removed from the top of the article because those images are non-free, and they do not have a fair use rational for this article. Non-free images may only be used in an article if there is a valid fair use rational as described in WP:RAT. That being said I think the images are merely decorative and are not needed to convey any information about the subject of the article which is a rivalry. As such, I don't think they qualify for fair use regardless. 1 != 2 16:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation here. I personally was having trouble grasping the whole rationale behind different pictures. This explanation makes sense and that's why it is out. If someone disagrees feel free to opine. Arnabdas (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of logos is permitted. The specific relevant policy is here: Wikipedia:Logos ie "Many images of logos are used on Wikipedia and long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes." Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the use of logos is permitted on Wikipedia. No one's disputing that. This discussion is about whether it's necessary to display the Yankees and Mets logos in this article, and whether they meet the non-free content criteria, which is POLICY. In addition to criterion 10, they fail criterion 8: they are not necessary for understanding the subject of this' article. If I'm reading the articles New York Mets or New York Yankees, seeing the logos helps me understand the subject. But in this article, I don't need to see a Yankees or Mets logo to understand the rivalry between the teams. The logos are merely decorative. szyslak (t) 22:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You could just as easily say the same thing about the use of the logo on the New York Yankees page itself--that is, the logo does not "signficiantly increase my understanding" of the baseball team as per criterion 8. That particular point of the policy has little relevance in the context of logos. As per criterion 10, the image description page satisfies a, b, c. Your interpretation seems to me like an overzealous and overliteral application of the rule. Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Except you can't easily say the same thing. The logo identifies the entity, New York Yankees, and the use to identify the article subject is allowed under WP:LOGO. It does not, however, represent the rivalry. Rivalries (usually) don't have logos, and when there is a logo that represents the rivalry, then fair use applies. --Mosmof (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject is the rivalry between the YANKEES and the METS. To say it is just the rivalry in abstract is a semantic game. Anyway, my points still stands--the use to identify is the article subject is allowed under WP:LOGO provided it complies with criterion 8 of non-free content criteria, which stipulates it must "signficiantly increase understanding" of the subject. If that applies to Yankees, it applies to this article. Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sylvain1972 is exactly right. As some sometimes seem to forget, the standard is "significance," not "necessity." Under WP:Non-free content, logos are expressly permitted for purposes of identification (indeed, that's the very purpose for an entity to have a logo in the first place). The logos here identify the participants in the rivalry and hence significantly enhance the reader's understanding the article's subject (similar to why election articles include pictures of the candidates in the infobox).-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NLE-NYM-Logo.png

The image Image:NLE-NYM-Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Casey Stengel and Pre-Interleague

I added the retired numbers of Stengel for both teams. Unfortunately, the editing went to hell. Could someone please clean it up so it is formatted better? I'm not sure how to do it...Arnabdas (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

More missing...

Jesse Orosco is missing from the table. He had a cup of coffee with the Yankees before being DFA'd in 2003, I believe it was. Kjscotte34 (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nightmare? Huh?

What the heck is "World Series Nightmares"? That looks like classic original research to me. I've removed it for now until someone can prove otherwise. Wknight94 ^talk 18:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetizing the order of the teams

I've moved this article to a new name with the teams' names alphabetized, and reordered parts of the article to reflect this. NYCRuss ☎ 14:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I created this article and had Yankees-Mets due to chronological reasons. The Yankees came first. It really isn't a big deal necessarily, but I am curious about what wikipedia policies there are regarding this, if any. If none exist, I think we should discuss this further to reach consensus. Arnabdas (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've had this issue with the New Meadowlands Stadium. I've always put the Giants first, then the Jets. But with that, they're in both alphabetical and chronological order. There should probably be a consensus on which should have the higher priority, as it concerns articles such as this one. Kjscotte34 (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If chronological order is used, then the Yankees–Dodgers and Yankees–Giants needs to be reversed. Anyway, chronological seems inappropriate to me because the rivalry didn't exist until both teams existed, which occured at the same time. The guideline that I found, which strikes me as most appropriate, is WP:AND and it seems to lean towards alphabetical. NYCRuss ☎ 18:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AND makes sense. Mets-Yankees it is. Arnabdas (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

1973 NL Pennant

I try to make clear that the Mets winning the 1973 NL Pennant marked the only time between 1970 and 1980 that the NL East wasn't won by either the Philadelphia Phillies or the Pittsburgh Pirates. I'm not going to mention that either team was a primary rival of the Mets; just mention that the 1973 NL Pennant was the only time between 1970 and 1980 that neither the Phillies, nor the Pirates won the NL East. – SNIyer12 (talk), 18:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with the information as you've reworded it. I'm still not certain it's entirely relevant to the Mets-Yankees rivalry, per se, but as the section in question is simply background information on the two teams it should be OK. Thanks for addressing my concerns. TempDog123 (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the statement is just a descriptor of trivia or just a statement of fact and background information. The primary can be added as they were primary rivals, but that must be sourced of course. Arnabdas (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Moment of Peace"

The phrase "moment of peace in the rivalry" is used three times in this article: (1) 1986 World Series, when Yankee fans show up to Mets' parade; (2) 2000 World Series, when both teams thank Cardinals for making Subway Series possible; (3) after the 2001 attacks. I have also seen this phrase pop up in several other rivalry articles.

Is that phrase mentioned in all of these sources? I somehow doubt it, and at worst the phrase constitutes original research, and at best is unnecessarily repetitive language. I'm going to delete it. Let the events in question speak for themselves. TempDog123 (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've left the phrase in at the 9/11 section. Most of that area is currently unsourced anyway and needs to be worked on, but for now it strikes me as the only appropriate place for such terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TempDog123 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

July 3, 2011 Game

I saw there was some disagreement about the Mets win that game. The argument about the Louis Castillo game being the same thing is not something I agree with. That dropped pop up is something that never happens and that is what makes it significant that it happened in the rivalry. I think the 22 straight chances of Rivera converting could be notable, but only if it is some sort of record that was broken or some personal achievement reached. Arnabdas (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Basically, the reason why something should be included is some sort of notable comeback or some notable record being broken. When I first read it, I thought it said 22 straight but it actually reads 22 out of the last 23 which seems to not make it some sort of record. Of course Collins is going to say the game is "enormous" as all managers would want to win a Subway Series. If this was a turning point in the season I could also support its inclusion, but this just seems non-notable. Arnabdas (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Yankees and Mets face each other a total of six times each year. This event was the most notable of 2011, a season which thus far has no mention in the list (which I tagged previously as it should be in prose format). The anonymous IP user who disagreed appears to have acquiesced, and indeed it appears that he added information regarding David Wright's previous come-from-behind against Rivera, and also the Yankees come-from-behind to avoid a sweep at Yankee Stadium. IMHO, these are all notable moments that are properly sourced.

With all due respect, because we've worked together on this article before and this isn't directed at you in particular, but this article has several such instances of victories from the Yankees but I add one from the Mets and it's basis for objection? If Rivera being walked home for the go-ahead RBI and Castillo's dropped ball are notable, then so is this. TempDog123 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Arnabdas, it would appear that the anonymous IP actually added more information about that game. I've trimmed so as not to overemphasize its importance, but as a show of good faith left the sentence that reads "The Yankees still won the season series four games to two" even though I'm not sure why it needs to be mentioned here since it's already reflected in the season series results chart, other than to mitigate apparently injured Yankee pride.  :-P And if that really is the motivating factor, I can't imagine why fans of a franchise that has won more than twice the amount of championships in the past 15 years than the Mets have in their entire existence would begrudge the inclusion of one game in the Mets favor. TempDog123 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My comment was not made because I prefer the Yankees over the Mets. I in fact do like the Mets too. The issue is about notability. This has nothing to do with "Yankee pride" and, with all due respect, it's ridiculous on your part to accuse me of that so I ask you to please be mindful of having good faith and not attack my integrity. The reason why I raised an inquiry about that particular game (key phrase raising an inquiry, not even an objection) was because of what made that game special. Having a pitcher (let alone an AL relief pitcher) get walked and bring in the game winning RBI or winning the game on a walk off pop up are things that just don't happen in baseball games. I am not adamantly opposed to this particular game being included, I am just saying we have to be sure to include it for the right reasons. It shouldn't be just because we don't have a 2011 event included or because it was a comeback win. I am raising the question about what was so special about THIS game that it warrants inclusion? Was it the first time the Mets ever came back against the Yankees? Was it the first time Mariano Rivera blew a save against them? If it was the first time Mo blew a save against the Mets, then yes, by all means include it because that's what makes it significant. A simple comeback doesn't. Arnabdas (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Arnabdas, first of all none of that stuff about bias was addressed to you. I thought I made that clear when I said, "none of this is directed at you in particular." I was talking about the anonymous IP user who first raised the objection and felt the need to add "the Yankees still won the series 4-2," which to me sounded like a Yankee fan adding something good about the Yankees to save injured pride or something. I can't see any other reason for making the objection in the first place and then including that sentence. Maybe that's just me.

Additionally, I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. That's why I added the sticky tongue emoticon.  :-P To be honest, I'd debated whether to just maintain a hardass position on this, or try breaking the ice by being more relaxed. Apparently, it is hard to do the latter because sarcasm does not always come across well on the internet. Sorry if my attempt at humor was taken the wrong way. We worked well before to resolve the dispute regarding mentioning the linking of Brooklyn Dodgers and NY Giants before, so no disrespect intended.

As to your substantive points on the other issues at hand, the best determination for notability is proper sourcing. You say a pitcher being walked in for the winning run "just doesn't happen in baseball games." Do you have a citation for that? Is there a reliable secondary source that says "it just doesn't happen in baseball games!" Because if not, then that's, like, just your opinion man. I note that the entire entry on Rivera's walk is uncited. If we are going to have a discussion about removing entries, let's start there, because it should be tagged with "citation needed" or removed entirely.

By contrast, what I proposed adding is not lacking a citation. To the contrary, it quotes the citation entirely accurately and I removed information added by the anonymous IP that was not found in the referenced source. You say it's not notable because it's a "simple comeback." The article written by the NY Times says it's notable because in 23 previous opportunities Mo converted 22 saves. That and MSNBC quote manager Terry Collins saying it was an "enormous" comeback. I even remember Keith Hernandez on SNY (probably still available on the web) saying this might be the Mets' "most important win of the season so far" since they were struggling to get above .500 and that put them right there instead of 2 games under.

So the question is, what's more notable, the unsourced paragraph or the one that I can find several citations to back up? What is a better determination of notability, the personal opinion of editors or accurately quoting several reliable secondary sources? Lack of citations and original research are MAJOR problems with this article and the related Subway Series, though the latter is much worse. TempDog123 (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured your statement was just being a friendly jest, but as you said it's hard to determine on the internet and we don't know each other well either, so understanding what a joke is sometimes hard to do. That's why I just opted for the more formal tone to be sure that it wasn't just some crazy fan trying to get his information without having a standard. I suspected it wasn't, but I just wanted to make sure so we are good.

I think the "enormous" monicker is not really that ideal, but if Hernandez did say it was the most important win of the season so far then that leads to more credibility of inclusion as a significant event in the whole fabric of the rivalry. As I said in my earlier post, I wasn't necessariliy objecting to that being included in, I was just raising the question of whether or not this particular game was notable enough in the grand scheme of the rivalry. It wasn't meant to be stickling to wiki policies so talking about all what you said regarding citations for Rivera getting an RBI is not necessary. We also don't have to cite things that are also considered more so common knowledge...e.g. we dont need to include a citation that NYC is a city in NY state every time we mention that. Within the baseball world, it's common knowledge that AL pitchers don't bat and thus do not have opportunities for RBI. That game was more so notable though for his 500th save. A personal milestone is huge as well as some sort of record. For example, we listed Carlos Delgado's HR blasts earlier in the article.

The point is I was just asking a question and had an opinion that I was more tham amenable to changing. If we don't have some standard of inclusion then the article just gets way too big with a lot of unnecessary information. I suggested that merely a comeback win may not be worthy for inclusion. This particular win may though especially if it was really that significant for the Mets. If it's going to be included, we should highlight that part of how a game with the Yankees helped change the Mets fortune. Do I make more sense now? Arnabdas (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Arnabdas, we are cool. As I said, we worked together to resolve the dispute regarding History of Brooklyn Dodgers and NY Giants. No hard feelings on my end, and hopefully not on yours either. Just a stupid misunderstanding.

However, I think we still have a general disagreement as to approach. You said, "It wasn't meant to be stickling to wiki policies so talking about all what you said regarding citations for Rivera getting an RBI is not necessary." IMHO, it is necessary though. We must abide by Wikipedia policy. This goes beyond just the argument over inclusion of this one game. It speaks to general problems with both this article and Subway Series. It's awesome that you created this article. The Subway Series is a historic and notable sporting event in New York City. That, I hope, we can agree upon. This is the most recent version of that event and I'm glad that you made this page. However, to take it to the next level it really does need to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's standards.

As for common knowledge, no one will dispute that NYC is a city in the State of New York. That AL pitchers don't have opportunities to bat in the MLB? More questionable. I don't think you could properly take "judicial notice" (that's the legal term) of the latter as fact. Regardless, even accepting that it is common knowledge, what in particular makes it special about Rivera's case in this particular game. That, undoubtedly, is not common knowledge and needs a citation. This is what I have done by referencing reliable sources with respect to the July 3 game.

I took a look at WP:Notability to see what does count as notable. Unfortunately, the page deals mostly with whether or not a topic is notable enough to warrant its own article, not whether a particular event merits inclusion. You'll see, however, that there is nonetheless an emphasis on citations. I'm not trying to place WP:undue weight on this one event. It's a simple three sentence blurb with two separate citations that properly source the material I added. I could add even more information and sources about this one game, but then that runs the risk of the entry for this one event becoming bloated, which seems to be the opposite of what you want.

As to other issues with the article, I've made a list of some below. I'm hoping to address some of these over time, because it's just impossible to get to all of them at once. But if we work together, we might be able to make this one of the better articles on Wikipedia. TempDog123 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I think the compromise here is that to leave it in. If the article gets way too big in the future where people are just randomly inserting nonsense into it then we have to revisit things. It's just a concern I have for the future that people don't add the results of every single frown between the two. I'm more coming at it from a theoretical concept. Should the issue arise in the future where it's getting way to big, we can address it then. Thanks for the dialogue. Arnabdas (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A fair compromise. :-) TempDog123 (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

Several aspects of this article do not meet Wikipedia's standards. I'm highlighting some of the most glaring in the hopes that fellow editors will take steps to improve upon them.

• Citations. Particularly in the background section. This is also a problem in the related article Subway Series. New York sports fans know that the Subway Series originally referred to World Series match-ups between New York teams. We also know that it currently refers to interleague play between the Mets and Yankees. Nonetheless, this still needs to be cited. Were regular season Dodgers-Giants games not considered Subway Series? Were the 1921 and 1922 WS between Yankees-Giants considered Subway Series when both played in the Polo Grounds, and if not was the term retroactively applied? All of this needs to be cited. With respect to the history of the two teams themselves, perhaps some information and references can be ported from History of the New York Mets and History of the New York Yankees.

• Original research. This is particularly notable in the last few paragraphs about the 2000 World Series. It says that this World Series "officially" made the Yankees dynasty a part of the Mets-Braves rivalry. The source is a Sporting News article that I can't retrieve online, but it the source does not actually say that this "officially made the Yankees dynasty a part of the Mets-Braves rivalry", then it constitutes original research. Furthermore, the next line says that Torre "added fuel to the fire" by having been a manager of both the Yanks and Mets. The source is Baseball-Reference.com, and nowhere is it mentioned that this "added fuel to the fire." The reference is just a collection of Torre's stats and could only stand for the assertion that he did, in fact, manage both teams. Finally, the assertion that this World Series was a "sense of revenge" for Clemens is entirely unsourced. The following line states that it was further revenge because the 1986 Mets threw out the ceremonial first pitch. The source in question only says that the 1986 Mets did in fact throw out the first pitch. Nothing about this being a sense of revenge for Clemens. If you accurately quote a source for part of a sentence but then add additional information that is not supported by the reference, it still constitutes original resource. The section about Clemens and Seaver is also entirely unsourced.

• 1999 season should be expanded to note the significance of both teams making postseason together for the first time. This should only be done, of course, if proper citations can be found to verify such information.

• 2000 World Series is unsourced and needs citations. This is something that I intend to do myself since there are existing sources online that detail the highlights of the games.

• The entire article from 2001 forward is in list format. This should be rewritten as readable prose. A decade worth of information presented as bulletpoints does not meet Wikipedia standards. The remainder of this article also requires citations for all unreferenced information.

I thought I would bring this to the editors' attention before further tagging, rewriting, and/or deleting unsourced material and original research. I hope we can improve this article and Subway Series to bring them up to standard. Thanks! TempDog123 (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of this and thank you for moving ahead with it all. I think one way you can go about it is looking at when the term of Subway Series was first used and then move on from there. I had originally put it in list format as other articles were in list format. Since then, they've been written in prose so if you can do it please do. Arnabdas (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I recall a Johnny Carson monologue from the early 1960s when the Yankees were consistently the A.L. champions and the new Mets usually finished last. He lamented that the annual Yankees-Mets game had been rained out, and added "The Mets were leading 1-0. Of course, the Yankees hadn't arrived yet." WHPratt (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And this contributes to improving the article how? TempDog123 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It recalls the once-great qualtiative divide between the competing teams. If someone could indeed document it, it could be added. WHPratt (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Perhaps I was too subtle. The article jumps from the Mets’ inception to their first pennant in the space of a sentence. Part of what makes this a “rivalry” is its humble beginnings, with a gang of record-setting losers squaring off against a perennial pennant winner for the affection of the city’s fans, and that’s missing I suggested the contemporary statement of a well-known commentator upon the New York scene as a means of expressing it, just in case someone wanted to expand upon the matter. WHPratt (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. Yes, I agree that one of the defining characteristics of the rivalry is the overdog-underdog positions of the Yankees-Mets, respectively, much as it was for years with Yankees-Red Sox. Certainly, the Mets ineptitude during those first few years is notable, but we do have mention of the 40-120 record in the same year the Yankees won the World Series. It then also states that the Mets didn't finish better than second to last, while the Yankees won two more pennants in '63 and '64, until the 1969 Miracle Mets. It also mentions, conversely, the Yankees struggles during the Mets success in the 80's. I think therefore that the power disparity at different times is pretty well documented. TempDog123 (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Rarity of transactions

It might be worth adding that the two teams rarely trade together. Anthony McCarron put together the full list of transactions:

• Nov. 30, 1964: Yanks take outfielder Duke Carmel in the Rule 5 draft.
• June 15, 1966: Mets purchase pitcher Bob Friend from the Yankees.
• June 29, 1967: Mets buy pitcher Hal Reniff from the Yankees.
• Dec. 9, 1977: Mets send infielder Roy Staiger to Yanks for Sergio Ferrer.
• Aug. 20, 1979: Yankees sell pitcher Ray Burris to the Mets.
• April 1, 1980: Yanks purchase infielder Marshall Brant from Mets.
• April 18, 1983: Mets trade pitcher Steve Ray and a player to be named later (Felix Perdomo) for infielder Tucker Ashford.
• Dec. 11, 1987: The Mets send shortstop Rafael Santana and pitcher Victor Garcia to the Yankees for catcher Phil Lombardi, outfielder Darren Reed and pitcher Steve Frey.
• July 10, 1989: Outfielder Marcus Lawton is traded from the Mets to the Yankees for pitcher Scott Nielsen.
• June 9, 1992: Mets swap pitcher Tim Burke and cash for pitcher Lee Guetterman.
• Dec. 7, 1992: Mets take pitcher Mike Draper from the Yankees in the Rule 5 draft.
• Sept. 17, 1993: Mets send pitcher Frank Tanana to Yanks for pitcher Kenny Greer.
• Dec. 7, 2001: Mets send third baseman Robin Ventura to the Bronx for outfielder David Justice.
• July 16, 2003: Yanks get reliever Armando Benitez from Mets for pitchers Jason Anderson, Anderson García and Ryan Bicondoa.
• Dec. 3, 2004: Mets trade Mike Stanton to the Yankees for Felix Heredia.
• Dec. 19, 2014: Mets trade Gonzalez Germen for cash.

(Above was unsigned.) Sixteen deals in 50 years does sound rather sparse. But we'd need to know: what's the rate of Yankee or Met interleague transactions in general over the same period, e.g. how many Yankees/Pirates deals, or Mets/Tigers and so on? WHPratt (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mets–Yankees rivalry. 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/20090616110357/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/blogs/mets/2009/06/k-rod-bruney-hostility-continu.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/mets/2009/06/k-rod-bruney-hostility-continu.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Notable Players for Both Teams

This section doesn't make sense. By policy after meeting certain criteria ALL players in MLB are rated as "notable" as per Wikipedia articles created of them. Thus, this list should be comprehensive of all players who played for both teams or eliminate the section altogether. 161.185.151.51 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

12.4 television rating?

Could someone explain for the non-US reader what this means:

The 12.4 television rating and 21 share of the 2000 World Series was the worst in history when it was played. For the Mets, the 12.4 rating was less than half of what they were when during their previous appearance, when Game 7 drew a 38.9 rating and 55 share. Redpaul1 (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It's badly written and should be edited, but it means this, I think:

Up until that point, it had the lowest viewership of any World Series. It doesn't refer to the raw numbers of viewers; rather, it's measured against how many watched it compared to other TV programs at the same time. Yitz711 (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on shading of MLB rivalry tables

A request for comment has been open which may impact this page. Please review here. Frank Anchor 22:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)