Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

WikiProject Baseball
Main project page + talk Special projects talk Resource Library talk Article Improvement Drive talk Requested articles and todo talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Cleanup listing talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → Article alerts talk Article assessment (Log) talk  → Featured articles (61) talk  → Featured lists (211) talk  → Good articles (545) talk Outreach talk  → Newsletter talk Portal talk Notability guidelines talk Style advice talk  → Naming conventions talk  → Player style advice talk  → Season article format talk Handling transactions talk Popular pages talk Active editors
Project organization Participants talk Large userbox talk Project userbox talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Major League Baseball Team specific Atlanta Braves talk Boston Red Sox talk Chicago Cubs talk Cincinnati Reds talk Los Angeles Angels talk Los Angeles Dodgers talk Minnesota Twins talk New York Mets talk New York Yankees talk Philadelphia Phillies talk San Diego Padres talk Seattle Mariners talk St. Louis Cardinals talk
General Subprojects Players talk College baseball talk Leagues and teams talk Little League talk Old-time Base Ball talk Negro league baseball talk Hall of Fame talk Umpires talk
Geographical Australia talk Japan talk Korea talk Taiwan talk
view · edit · changes

RfC on league leaders tables

Should the League leaders tables be formatted differently? Some users have suggested changing the tables to be more compact, so I have four different ideas as to how they could be formatted. (1, 2, 3, 4). Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• I recommend withdrawing this RFC until there's something more concrete for editors to comment on... should they be formatted differently? I don't know. If you have two examples to compare against that would be easier to digest than searching through 4 examples. Nemov (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't want to put the ideas here as they take up a lot of space (and are all on the same page), but I will put them here if that is the better option. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's usually more effective to give an overview of what you perceive as the problem and your proposed solution. And if you can't narrow down from four options, describe what is the conflict that you want input on.—Bagumba (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Previous discussions had some users commenting that the tables should be more compact, so that's where this RfC is stemming from. I've changed the original RfC question to specify why I've submitted this RfC. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is too much, too fast. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  What's not too much, too fast? Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 17:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• I like #4 for compactness, but there could be further discussion on which specific stats should be included. Jhn31 (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  It may be worth it to compare the 1923 season stat table proposals. with the 2024 season stat table proposals. I'm personally feeling #4 as well, as it doesn't lead to the seasons with more than two leagues (1914–1915, 1920–1948) to have multiple tables taking up a lot of space. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 17:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• 4 should be fine long as it doesn't become even wider. 2 as a second choice. CurryCity (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• So uh... Wikipedia's new larger standard font size may lead to some changed opinions. For 1923: (1, 2, 3, 4) and For 2024: (1, 2, 3, 4). You two @Jhn31: @CurryCity: previously made your opinions, what do you think now? I still personally think #4 is preferable (there's not many season with 4 columns, only for 1923–1929, 1932, & 1937–1948). Maybe we should consider formatting the font to be at 95% or 90%?Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 14:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Prefer the compact table of #4 and am pretty indifferent on the font size. Jhn31 (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Let's go with 4 then since readers can adjust the font and other styles now. CurryCity (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think the league leaders table is just fine the way it currently is. I believe the saying “if it ain’t broke…” is appropriate here. Leave it alone is my vote. Pewtey (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Cumulative win-loss record for head-to-head rivals

I have started a discussion at Talk:Major League Baseball rivalries#Relevance of head-to-head win-loss records regarding a recent set of changes that introduced the cumulative head-to-head win-loss records for pairs of rivals, over the entire history of the teams. Feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I had previously added them to each section due to it already existing on the Angels-Athletics section, and I was trying to keep some consistency from section to section, though I'm indifferent regarding keeping or removing the head-to-head records. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 16:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

To briefly summarize what I said on the Major League Baseball rivalries talk page, I think fans talk about pennant races and playoff series wins when they talk about rivalries. I don't think cumulative head-to-head win-loss records for the regular season and for the playoffs really captures what fans are thinking about with rivalries, even if these are numbers that broadcasters like to trot out. Thus I think the records should be removed from the rivalries article. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding (or removing?) stats to League leaders sections in season pages

Currently, hitting and pitching leaders tables each have 6 stats each. I'm of the belief that OPS should be added to hitting leaders and less so adamant that WHIP be added to pitching leaders. Why OPS? It seems that most of the league at this point focuses more on OPS than AVG. Why WHIP? Though not as focused on compared to ERA, it portrays a pitchers effectiveness against batters and is typically on even smaller pitching stats tables (such as CBS Sports, which for pitching stats, shows Wins, ERA, Saves, Strikeouts, and WHIP). Plus, adding WHIP would keep both hitting and pitching leaders to show 7 stats each.

I know I read somewhere in the talk page someone had suggested reducing the stats listed. I personally disagree but I wanted to mention it.

Regarding an addition or removal, I'm willing to go through all 124 season pages to update them. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 17:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Creating pages for Milwaukee Braves, Kansas City Athletics, and Washington Senators (1961–1971)

In my sandbox, I have created pages for the Milwaukee Braves, Kansas City Athletics, and Washington Senators (1961–1971). I'd like to copy/paste the content to the redirect pages or move the sandbox page itself to proper articles (with admin support, as I cannot do that myself), but I wanted input from other WikiProject Baseball users before doing any sort of implementation. I've modeled these pages mostly after the Boston Braves article, but most mentioned below follow a similar format.

Mind you, there is heavy precedent for having separate pages for the same franchise but of different locations, such as:

• Baltimore Orioles with franchise pages Milwaukee Brewers (1894–1901) and St. Louis Browns
• Atlanta Braves with franchise page Boston Braves
• Oakland Athletics with franchise page Philadelphia Athletics
• San Francisco Giants with franchise page New York Giants (baseball)
• Los Angeles Dodgers with franchise page Brooklyn Dodgers
• Minnesota Twins with franchise page Washington Senators (1901–1960)
• Milwaukee Brewers with franchise page Seattle Pilots
• Washington Nationals with franchise page Montreal Expos

Some of these teams existed longer in previous locations (Braves, Giants, Dodgers, Expos) and some existed for only one season (Seattle Pilots).

These three pages would simply complete the set of prior locations of current MLB franchises. Much of the content is largely taken from existing articles (as are stated at the top of each of the three sandbox articles at the moment), but each have been expanded with Infoboxes, and "Legacy", "Notable [Team Name players]", "Uniforms", and "List of [Team Name] seasons" sections. Some areas of the articles have been expanded within the already existing-from-other-articles sections. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

For the Milwaukee Braves I believe the History of the Atlanta Braves article is the best place for covering the franchise history in Milwaukee, especially since the franchise wasn't in Milwaukee for very long. This probably opens up a can of worms but the Boston Braves article pretty much covers the exact same information that's already included in the Atlanta Braves article what's left could be put in the "History of..." article as well. Nemov (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe there already was an RFC held a few years ago, on how to handle relocated MLB franchises. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, here's the RFC. Nemov (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

A 2022 request for comments discussion resulted in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) § North American sports teams being modified to state that if there is sufficient content, keep an article at the old franchise name. Otherwise, the old name is redirected to either the appropriate section in the new franchise article or the "History of new franchise" article. So it's up to editorial judgement if these former franchises have enough content for an independent article. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm definitely new to the discussion history regarding this topic, but my understanding from reading through the past discussions on this talk page, mainly Archive 41 from 2015 and Archive 47 from 2022 (in which the next section was to the RfC related to sports team names), I get the sense that the initial solution to this reoccurring question was to split each teams history in a previous location to its own (for example) "History of the Boston Braves" page, though in some cases, there weren't any splits (such as with the Milwaukee Braves, as the history was not long/detailed enough to warrant its own page).

Then, that decade-ish long consensus had the rug swept out from underneath when the RfC on naming conventions took all of these dedicated "History of [FORMER LOCATION TEAM NAME]" articles and removed the "History of", making it so the 9 of the 12 previous-locations-of-current-franchise pages (excluding the three team iterations that sparked this section) now all had separate articles, when before that wasn't the case. The "history of..." seemed to be a compromise between keeping all team history in the current franchise "History of..." pages and simply breaking off each previous-locations-of-current-franchise pages.

I'm coming into this only now (and just read the archives while typing this comment). I made these three sandbox pages because my thinking was "well if these 9 articles mentioned above can exist, why not the other 3? Especially considering a page like Seattle Pilots only covers one season".

Personally, I'm of the belief that while the franchises are technically the same, I'd argue simply being in different cities (especially of considerable distance as Boston>Milwaukee>Atlanta or Philadelphia>Kansas City>Oakland) is enough to warrant their own articles (again, see Seattle Pilots). For example, the Milwaukee Brewers and Philadelphia Phillies celebrate other franchises' histories, with the Milwaukee Braves Wall of Honor and Philadelphia Phillies Wall of Fame (which includes many Philadelphia Athletics players), respectively. There's a history of baseball in that location. Though of course, at the same time, these histories are celebrated by the Atlanta Braves and Oakland Athletics franchises, respectively. These two simultaneous views on how to look at these now-relocated teams, to me, warrants their own articles.

Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 18:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Based on the RFC, Milwaukee squarely falls into the "not enough history to justify an article" camp. The Atlanta Braves and History of the Atlanta Braves covers that period well. Nemov (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there should be enough history in thirteen seasons to have a separate article. If editors like Spesh531 are interested in developing more coverage of the Milwaukee Braves, then I think it's reasonable to have a standalone article. (If there is no interest at the moment in expanding coverage, then I'm less opinionated about spinning out the Milwaukee history.) isaacl (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I too fail to see how one season of the Seattle Pilots and eight seasons in the late 1800s of the early-era Milwaukee Brewers (1894–1901) are both worthy of articles, but thirteen seasons of the Milwaukee Braves, thirteen seasons of the Kansas City Athletics, and eleven seasons of the Washington Senators (1961–1971) somehow are not. If editors are eager and willing to work on developing articles for those three teams, I say go ahead and do it. After all, the history of those three franchises in those three cities would most definitely meet WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I do agree if new content laser focused on the Milwaukee Braves is created I wouldn't object. However, a new article simply covering the same exact content found elsewhere it's not necessary. The Boston Braves article could be improved a lot in this regard. Nemov (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The RfC didn't address whether or not an article should exist -- it only covered if it did exist what the title should be. Basically, you shouldn't have a "History of the Brooklyn Dodgers" unless you first have a "Brooklyn Dodgers" article. IMO, Spesh531 could have created these articles per WP:BRD. I always figured someone would eventually fill in the blanks and turn the redirects into articles one of these days.

It looks like the 3 redirects all meet the "minor history" requirement so you can probably tag all 3 with {{Db-g6}} and an admin can complete the page move. (You can't copy/paste your Milwaukee article because more than one user has edited the page.) Also since you copied content from the old History article, be sure to give proper attribution by putting {{copied}} on the talk pages (see Talk:St. Louis Stars (baseball) & Talk:St. Louis Stars (1937) for {{copied}} examples). Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment on shading of MLB rivalry tables

In late 2023 and early 2024, User:Spesh531 modified rivalry tables by adding team colors to home/away results columns and overall series columns of the table. Previously, only the individual season series column was shaded After some WP:BRD edits today, I believe it should be examined by the the Baseball wikiproject to gain some consensus moving forward. Below is an excerpt from the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page, in two versions. Frank Anchor 19:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Version 1

2021	Red Sox	10‍–‍9	Yankees, 5‍–‍4	Red Sox, 6‍–‍4	Yankees 1233‍–‍1018‍–‍14	Red Sox win 8 straight meetings (September 2020 to July 2021) immediately following Yankees' 12-game winning streak in the series.
2021 ALWC	Red Sox	1‍–‍0	—	Red Sox, 1‍–‍0	Yankees 1233‍–‍1019‍–‍14	First meeting in the Wild Card Game since the round was added in 2012.
2022	Yankees	13‍–‍6	Yankees, 8‍–‍2	Yankees, 5‍–‍4	Yankees 1246‍–‍1025‍–‍14
2023	Red Sox	9‍–‍4	Red Sox, 5‍–‍1	Red Sox, 4‍–‍3	Yankees 1250‍–‍1034‍–‍14	Schedule structure modified this season to allow every team to play one series against every interleague team. This reduced the number of meetings from 19 to 13 per season.
2024	Red Sox	4‍–‍2	Red Sox, 2‍–‍1	Tie, 3‍–‍3	Yankees 1254‍–‍1039‍–‍14	Four games remaining in New York.

Version 2

2021	Red Sox	10‍–‍9	Yankees, 5‍–‍4	Red Sox, 6‍–‍4	Yankees 1233‍–‍1018‍–‍14	Red Sox win 8 straight meetings (September 2020 to July 2021) immediately following Yankees' 12-game winning streak in the series.
2021 ALWC	Red Sox	1‍–‍0	—	Red Sox, 1‍–‍0	Yankees 1233‍–‍1019‍–‍14	First meeting in the Wild Card Game since the round was added in 2012.
2022	Yankees	13‍–‍6	Yankees, 8‍–‍2	Yankees, 5‍–‍4	Yankees 1246‍–‍1025‍–‍14
2023	Red Sox	9‍–‍4	Red Sox, 5‍–‍1	Red Sox, 4‍–‍3	Yankees 1250‍–‍1034‍–‍14	Schedule structure modified this season to allow every team to play one series against every interleague team. This reduced the number of meetings from 19 to 13 per season.
2024	Red Sox	4‍–‍2	Red Sox, 2‍–‍1	Tie, 3‍–‍3	Yankees 1254‍–‍1039‍–‍14	Four games remaining in New York.

Discussion

• I support Version 2 as nominator. The first version uses TOO MUCH color. Only having the individual season series shaded allow it to better "stand out" since it is more relevant information (most of the tables are in a section entitled "Season-by-season results" or similar). Whichever team won more games at home is in a given year trivial, as is who led an ongoing series after each year (the overall series is summarized at the end of each table, using team colors). Frank Anchor 19:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• I support Version 1, as the editor referenced in the intial RfC in question here.
  First off, there was no consensus prior to my edits of adding this table to all rivalry pages. Some tables existed as Mets/Phillies (Version 1), while some existed as Yankees/Red Sox (Version 2) (which in this case, didn't even feature an 'Overall series' column). Both linked versions are prior to me ever editing either page (save for a single minor edit in 2022 where I changed the "i" in the last names of Joely Rodriguez and Edwin Diaz to "í" on the Mets/Phillies page). By not shading the (for this example) 'at New York', 'at Boston', or 'Overall series' columns, at least to me, the information becomes noise. IMO, everything colored in Version 1 is relevant to the season-by-season results. It's information that becomes less accessible if colorless. Also, the section of the article isn't called "Season series results", it's "Season-by-season results", so there isn't anything explicit about the table that says "only Season series results is relevant".
  Here are the tables with the column headers, as above examples have no context.

Yankees vs. Red Sox Season-by-Season Results
2020s (Yankees, 39–32) (with each column colored) Season Season series at New York Yankees at Boston Red Sox Overall series Notes 2020 Yankees 9‍–‍1 Yankees, 7‍–‍0 Yankees, 2‍–‍1 Yankees 1224‍–‍1008‍–‍14 Season shortened to 60 games (with 10 meetings) due to COVID-19 pandemic. Yankees win 12 straight meetings (September 2019 to September 2020). With a .900 win percentage, this was the most one-sided season series for the Yankees in the history of the rivalry and the most one-sided season series for either team since 1912. 2021 Red Sox 10‍–‍9 Yankees, 5‍–‍4 Red Sox, 6‍–‍4 Yankees 1233‍–‍1018‍–‍14 Red Sox win 8 straight meetings (September 2020 to July 2021) immediately following Yankees' 12-game winning streak in the series. 2021 ALWC Red Sox 1‍–‍0 — Red Sox, 1‍–‍0 Yankees 1233‍–‍1019‍–‍14 First meeting in the Wild Card Game since the round was added in 2012. 2022 Yankees 13‍–‍6 Yankees, 8‍–‍2 Yankees, 5‍–‍4 Yankees 1246‍–‍1025‍–‍14 2023 Red Sox 9‍–‍4 Red Sox, 5‍–‍1 Red Sox, 4‍–‍3 Yankees 1250‍–‍1034‍–‍14 Schedule structure modified this season to allow every team to play one series against every interleague team. This reduced the number of meetings from 19 to 13 per season. 2024 Red Sox 4‍–‍2 Red Sox, 2‍–‍1 Tie, 3‍–‍3 Yankees 1254‍–‍1039‍–‍14 Four games remaining in New York.
2020s (Yankees, 39–32) (with only season series columns colored) Season Season series at New York Yankees at Boston Red Sox Overall series Notes 2020 Yankees 9‍–‍1 Yankees, 7‍–‍0 Yankees, 2‍–‍1 Yankees 1224‍–‍1008‍–‍14 Season shortened to 60 games (with 10 meetings) due to COVID-19 pandemic. Yankees win 12 straight meetings (September 2019 to September 2020). With a .900 win percentage, this was the most one-sided season series for the Yankees in the history of the rivalry and the most one-sided season series for either team since 1912. 2021 Red Sox 10‍–‍9 Yankees, 5‍–‍4 Red Sox, 6‍–‍4 Yankees 1233‍–‍1018‍–‍14 Red Sox win 8 straight meetings (September 2020 to July 2021) immediately following Yankees' 12-game winning streak in the series. 2021 ALWC Red Sox 1‍–‍0 — Red Sox, 1‍–‍0 Yankees 1233‍–‍1019‍–‍14 First meeting in the Wild Card Game since the round was added in 2012. 2022 Yankees 13‍–‍6 Yankees, 8‍–‍2 Yankees, 5‍–‍4 Yankees 1246‍–‍1025‍–‍14 2023 Red Sox 9‍–‍4 Red Sox, 5‍–‍1 Red Sox, 4‍–‍3 Yankees 1250‍–‍1034‍–‍14 Schedule structure modified this season to allow every team to play one series against every interleague team. This reduced the number of meetings from 19 to 13 per season. 2024 Red Sox 4‍–‍2 Red Sox, 2‍–‍1 Tie, 3‍–‍3 Yankees 1254‍–‍1039‍–‍14 Four games remaining in New York.

Keeping in mind that each collapsible section of the table is a decade, and in the case of this series, there are 13 sections of 10 seasons each, it's hard to parse through the results of the series specifically in NY or in Boston year-to-year if they are entirely colorless/shaded gray. It's impossible to see trends of how, say, the Yankees performed at Fenway Park from year-to-year. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to look at the headers of the table and understand what's happening in each column. As arguably the most important information, the 'Season series' columns are immediately to the right of the 'Season' column. It doesn't get lost because other columns to the right are colored; there's no separation between the season year and season result. The ability to see the information isn't reduced. The focus is already on the 'Season series' by virtue of where it is in the table.

Regarding the idea that this is WP:TRIVIA: I want to note that showing the home and overall column data is not in question here. Simply the coloring of said information is. I'm not sure how coloring suddenly makes the information WP:TRIVIA. If it is trivia, then remove the 'at New York', 'at Boston', and 'Overall series' columns completely (which I'm not in favor of). The 'Overall series' column shows legitimate historical context to the history of the rivalry and having said information colorless in an expansive table of colorless information, again, renders it as noise. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The coloring is supposed to highlight the main component of the table, which is “season-by-season results” as is the title of the section for many of these charts. The home/away games and the overall series to that point are secondary information and do not need to be as prominently displayed. I would not be opposed to removing this home/away information as trivia, but having it displayed less prominently is acceptable as well. Thank you for adding the column headers on the tables. Not including them was an oversight on my part. Frank Anchor 22:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't support using any custom background cell colour. It's long been an accessibility issue, and its legibility needs to be tested with all themes and reading modes. Plus I don't feel it has sufficient utility in the current format. A separate table with just indicators for the season outcome and no text (beyond a single letter to distinguish between the two victors) would be able to better illustrate the trends over the entire history in a more compact format. isaacl (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Placement of Wildcard races

Since the League/Division standings are no longer side-by-side, but rather one under the other. Where are we going to locate the wildcard races, once it turns September? GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I have two ideas. It should be noted that the standings are side-by-side, but only when the screen resolution is wide enough. If they're not, then the National League wraps around to be below the American League. There are 2 ways we can do this. Either have it so the AL Division standings & AL Wild Card standings wrap together (FORMAT 1), or to have the Wild Card standings entirely below both AL & NL Division standings (FORMAT 2).

FORMAT 1

American League

AL East

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
New York Yankees	67	46	.593	—	29‍–‍24	38‍–‍22
Baltimore Orioles	67	47	.588	½	34‍–‍25	33‍–‍22
Boston Red Sox	61	51	.545	5½	27‍–‍28	34‍–‍23
Tampa Bay Rays	57	55	.509	9½	30‍–‍29	27‍–‍26
Toronto Blue Jays	52	61	.460	15	27‍–‍28	25‍–‍33

AL Central

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
Cleveland Guardians	67	45	.598	—	35‍–‍18	32‍–‍27
Minnesota Twins	63	49	.562	4	32‍–‍21	31‍–‍28
Kansas City Royals	63	52	.548	5½	36‍–‍24	27‍–‍28
Detroit Tigers	54	60	.474	14	26‍–‍31	28‍–‍29
Chicago White Sox	28	88	.241	41	17‍–‍40	11‍–‍48

AL West

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
Seattle Mariners	59	55	.518	—	33‍–‍25	26‍–‍30
Houston Astros	58	55	.513	½	32‍–‍26	26‍–‍29
Texas Rangers	54	60	.474	5	31‍–‍26	23‍–‍34
Los Angeles Angels	49	63	.438	9	26‍–‍35	23‍–‍28
Oakland Athletics	46	68	.404	13	27‍–‍30	19‍–‍38

American League Wild Card

Division leaders

Team	W	L	Pct.
Cleveland Guardians	67	45	.598
New York Yankees	67	46	.593
Seattle Mariners	59	55	.518

Wild Card teams
(Top 3 teams qualify for postseason)

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB
Baltimore Orioles	67	47	.588	+4½
Minnesota Twins	63	49	.562	+1½
Kansas City Royals	63	52	.548	—
Boston Red Sox	61	51	.545	½
Houston Astros	58	55	.513	4
Tampa Bay Rays	57	55	.509	4½
Detroit Tigers	54	60	.474	8½
Texas Rangers	54	60	.474	8½
Toronto Blue Jays	52	61	.460	10
Los Angeles Angels	49	63	.438	12½
Oakland Athletics	47	68	.409	16
Chicago White Sox	28	88	.241	35½

National League

NL East

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
Philadelphia Phillies	67	46	.593	—	38‍–‍21	29‍–‍25
Atlanta Braves	60	52	.536	6½	32‍–‍24	28‍–‍28
New York Mets	59	54	.522	8	30‍–‍29	29‍–‍25
Washington Nationals	52	62	.456	15½	26‍–‍29	26‍–‍33
Miami Marlins	42	72	.368	25½	22‍–‍36	20‍–‍36

NL Central

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
Milwaukee Brewers	63	49	.562	—	31‍–‍21	32‍–‍28
St. Louis Cardinals	58	56	.509	6	30‍–‍26	28‍–‍30
Pittsburgh Pirates	56	56	.500	7	27‍–‍29	29‍–‍27
Cincinnati Reds	55	58	.487	8½	28‍–‍31	27‍–‍27
Chicago Cubs	56	60	.483	9	31‍–‍27	25‍–‍33

NL West

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
Los Angeles Dodgers	66	48	.579	—	35‍–‍21	31‍–‍27
San Diego Padres	62	52	.544	4	30‍–‍29	32‍–‍23
Arizona Diamondbacks	61	52	.540	4½	31‍–‍25	30‍–‍27
San Francisco Giants	57	58	.496	9½	33‍–‍23	24‍–‍35
Colorado Rockies	42	72	.368	24	25‍–‍29	17‍–‍43

National League Wild Card

Division leaders

Team	W	L	Pct.
Philadelphia Phillies	67	46	.593
Los Angeles Dodgers	66	48	.579
Milwaukee Brewers	63	49	.562

Wild Card teams
(Top 3 teams qualify for postseason)

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB
San Diego Padres	62	52	.544	+1
Arizona Diamondbacks	61	52	.540	+½
Atlanta Braves	60	52	.536	—
New York Mets	59	54	.522	1½
St. Louis Cardinals	58	56	.509	3
Pittsburgh Pirates	56	56	.500	4
San Francisco Giants	57	58	.496	4½
Cincinnati Reds	55	58	.487	5½
Chicago Cubs	56	60	.483	6
Washington Nationals	52	62	.456	9
Colorado Rockies	42	72	.368	19
Miami Marlins	42	72	.368	19

FORMAT 2

American League

AL East

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
New York Yankees	67	46	.593	—	29‍–‍24	38‍–‍22
Baltimore Orioles	67	47	.588	½	34‍–‍25	33‍–‍22
Boston Red Sox	61	51	.545	5½	27‍–‍28	34‍–‍23
Tampa Bay Rays	57	55	.509	9½	30‍–‍29	27‍–‍26
Toronto Blue Jays	52	61	.460	15	27‍–‍28	25‍–‍33

AL Central

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
Cleveland Guardians	67	45	.598	—	35‍–‍18	32‍–‍27
Minnesota Twins	63	49	.562	4	32‍–‍21	31‍–‍28
Kansas City Royals	63	52	.548	5½	36‍–‍24	27‍–‍28
Detroit Tigers	54	60	.474	14	26‍–‍31	28‍–‍29
Chicago White Sox	28	88	.241	41	17‍–‍40	11‍–‍48

AL West

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
Seattle Mariners	59	55	.518	—	33‍–‍25	26‍–‍30
Houston Astros	58	55	.513	½	32‍–‍26	26‍–‍29
Texas Rangers	54	60	.474	5	31‍–‍26	23‍–‍34
Los Angeles Angels	49	63	.438	9	26‍–‍35	23‍–‍28
Oakland Athletics	46	68	.404	13	27‍–‍30	19‍–‍38

National League

NL East

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
Philadelphia Phillies	67	46	.593	—	38‍–‍21	29‍–‍25
Atlanta Braves	60	52	.536	6½	32‍–‍24	28‍–‍28
New York Mets	59	54	.522	8	30‍–‍29	29‍–‍25
Washington Nationals	52	62	.456	15½	26‍–‍29	26‍–‍33
Miami Marlins	42	72	.368	25½	22‍–‍36	20‍–‍36

NL Central

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
Milwaukee Brewers	63	49	.562	—	31‍–‍21	32‍–‍28
St. Louis Cardinals	58	56	.509	6	30‍–‍26	28‍–‍30
Pittsburgh Pirates	56	56	.500	7	27‍–‍29	29‍–‍27
Cincinnati Reds	55	58	.487	8½	28‍–‍31	27‍–‍27
Chicago Cubs	56	60	.483	9	31‍–‍27	25‍–‍33

NL West

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
Los Angeles Dodgers	66	48	.579	—	35‍–‍21	31‍–‍27
San Diego Padres	62	52	.544	4	30‍–‍29	32‍–‍23
Arizona Diamondbacks	61	52	.540	4½	31‍–‍25	30‍–‍27
San Francisco Giants	57	58	.496	9½	33‍–‍23	24‍–‍35
Colorado Rockies	42	72	.368	24	25‍–‍29	17‍–‍43

American League Wild Card

Division leaders

Team	W	L	Pct.
Cleveland Guardians	67	45	.598
New York Yankees	67	46	.593
Seattle Mariners	59	55	.518

Wild Card teams
(Top 3 teams qualify for postseason)

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB
Baltimore Orioles	67	47	.588	+4½
Minnesota Twins	63	49	.562	+1½
Kansas City Royals	63	52	.548	—
Boston Red Sox	61	51	.545	½
Houston Astros	58	55	.513	4
Tampa Bay Rays	57	55	.509	4½
Detroit Tigers	54	60	.474	8½
Texas Rangers	54	60	.474	8½
Toronto Blue Jays	52	61	.460	10
Los Angeles Angels	49	63	.438	12½
Oakland Athletics	47	68	.409	16
Chicago White Sox	28	88	.241	35½

National League Wild Card

Division leaders

Team	W	L	Pct.
Philadelphia Phillies	67	46	.593
Los Angeles Dodgers	66	48	.579
Milwaukee Brewers	63	49	.562

Wild Card teams
(Top 3 teams qualify for postseason)

Team	W	L	Pct.	GB
San Diego Padres	62	52	.544	+1
Arizona Diamondbacks	61	52	.540	+½
Atlanta Braves	60	52	.536	—
New York Mets	59	54	.522	1½
St. Louis Cardinals	58	56	.509	3
Pittsburgh Pirates	56	56	.500	4
San Francisco Giants	57	58	.496	4½
Cincinnati Reds	55	58	.487	5½
Chicago Cubs	56	60	.483	6
Washington Nationals	52	62	.456	9
Colorado Rockies	42	72	.368	19
Miami Marlins	42	72	.368	19

Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but with the current Template:Flexbox wrap format, I think these are the two options. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 19:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've wondered.. why do we have the division winners are part of the wild card templates? They are usually on the same page as the division standings templates so it seems redundant. For what it's worth.. format 2 looks better than format 1 to me. Spanneraol (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)