Talk:Rickey Henderson

No Mention of Sophie Kurys

In the Legacy section, when discussing how he became the greatest base-stealer in "the history of the sport", the article concentrates on Henderson's passing Brock's record. The problem being, to have become the greatest base-stealer in the history of the sport, he would have had to break Kurys's record, not Brock's. Now, granted, Henderson did just that in 1994, but shouldn't Wikipedia acknowledge that it was Kurys, who still holds the single-season stolen base record at 201 (71 more than Henderson's career high 130 stolen bases in a single season)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.178.14 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Introduction - dates

I disagree with your edits, 208, where you remove the HOF dates. Without them, a reader will be confused: when was he inducted? The answer is that he has not been. I think you have to leave both dates (announcement and ceremony date) until he is actually inducted. After that, no date will be needed at all; it will be accurate enough to just say "a hall of famer".

Oh, and I'm still waiting for someone to edit the MLB player template so the infobox can accurately state "Future Member" of the hall. Timneu22 (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay by me. I was just trying to clear the intro of material that's predestined for deletion. I'm not convinced that the technical difference between election and induction is a point worthy of the first paragraph of a biographical article, but it's certainly not worth squabbling about.208.120.7.152 (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just better to say "he will be inducted on july 26" and the election date isn't necessary? (I made this change.) Timneu22 (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your wording is even better. Ditto for the MVP move.208.120.7.152 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

GOAL

We should make a goal of having this be a featured article on July 26 (induction day), just like Washington, D.C is appropriately the featured article today (Inauguration Day). Could we get some review/feedback to see exactly what is needed and/or what this article is lacking? Timneu22 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. These are the reasons it was turned down in July of 2007: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rickey Henderson/archive1. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that the candidate article you cite is before it was a "good article". It's like comparing night and day. We should get another independent look at it now; it is far different. Timneu22 (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FA fail

I didn't expect FA, but I did expect good feedback. For those of you willing to help, here's the list: Timneu22 (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:08, 21 February 2009 [1].

---

Rickey Henderson

Nominator: Timneu22 (talk)

This article was nominated for FA status before, but that review was a long, long time ago; the article has been drastically improved since then. It is now a good article, with plenty of sources and a good variety of encyclopedic information. This article is ready to be featured, or it is very close to it. (Ideally, we will reach FA status by July 26, his induction day for the Hall of Fame.) Timneu22 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I'm a bit concerned about the reliance on a primary source, especially for statements such as "In 1987 he had an off-season by his standards, fueling criticism from the New York media, which had never covered Henderson or his eccentricities kindly."
  • "Manoloff, Dennis. "One on one with Rickey Henderson: future Hall of Famer - Interview". findarticles.com." Give publication name and date of publication, not just the name of the reprinter.
  • Newspapers/periodicals should be italicized. BuddingJournalist 03:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
• Current refs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are all just link titles. THey need publishers and last access dates at the very least, authors, and other bibliographic information would be better.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.baseballmusings.com/
  • http://www.answers.com/topic/rickey-henderson
  • http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/player/Rickey_Henderson
  • http://faithandfear.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2007/5/18/2959967.html
  • http://www.thebaseballpage.com/index.php
  • http://www.baseballprospectus.com/
  • http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/
• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. Same goes for magazines, the titles need to be in italics.
• Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
• Current ref 83 (MLB.com...) is lacking a pubilsher and last access date.
• Current ref 103 (Manoloff..) the publisher isn't find articles, it is from Baseball digest and should be formatted liek a journal article.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - After an in-depth look at the references, I'm concerned that the sourcing is bad. In addition to the ones that Ealdgyth found, these also concern me:

• http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ Used many times; I feel that these should be switched to Baseball-Reference where possible (most of them seem to be sourcing stats).
• http://web.archive.org/web/20041109095208/http://baseballreport.tripod.com/The+Baseball+Report+Volume+V+Issue+1.htm Tripod pages usually aren't considered reliable. Is this some kind of printed publication? If so, it may be able to sneak by, although I'm surprised they wouldn't have had a website.
• http://www.thebaseballcube.com/
• http://www.terra.com Don't really know who Terra is; are they like the Spanish version of Yahoo!? Either way, I'm concerned about the fact that this is Google-translated. Who knows what errors may have been introduced by the translation?
• http://www.minorleaguenews.com/
• http://www.brittanica.com/ This is not really a bad source, but I'm sure better sources can be found than a fellow encyclopedia.
• http://baseballanalysts.com/ Is Al Doyle a baseball writer or historian?
• http://bleacherreport.com/ This is citing his election into the Hall of Fame. It should be easy to find a higher-quality source than this.
• http://www.smackbomb.com/nolanryan/art-imjustaman.html Can't an AP story be found on a better site than this? Especially needed because this is citing a quote.
• http://z.lee28.tripod.com/sbnscoverstories/id12.html Another Tripod site. This is citing "These words have been taken by many to support the notion that Henderson is selfish and arrogant". Sorry, but in a biography of a living person the highest-quality sources are needed to support such a claim. That is not a fringe opinion among baseball people, so a better source is surely waiting to be found.

A person like Rickey Henderson should have more than enough good sources avaliable for writing an article. Honestly, it surprises me greatly to see this many questionable/unreliable sites used, and I hope that these can be replaced or removed promptly. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I am sorry to say that the nominator's confidence in this article is misplaced, as it has a lot of problems and a long way to go to achieve featured status.

• The sourcing issues above are serious. I second all the comments on sourcing above and would further stress that Rickey Henderson has been discussed a lot in a variety of media, and I am concerned that a large body of pertinent work was not consulted in drafting this article, leading to serious questions as to its comprehensiveness.
• The retirement section is longer than any of the individual sections on his career. Now, I feel that the career summary sections are probably too short, but that does not mean the retirement section is not way to long. There is no need for multiple quotes from Rickey on his desire to keep playing and no need for a whole paragraph relating to Billy Beane and a potential signing that failed to materialize.
• The Illeism, malapropism and anecdotes section need not exist at all. Any material from this section of importance should be integrated into the narrative flow of his career.
• The legacy section is sorely lacking. Many baseball scholars have been debating where Rickey sits among not just the best leadoff hitters of all time, but also the best players of all time, yet there is no discussion of the complete package he brought to the number one spot and how that ranks with other players. His stolen base numbers are impressive, but they are not the sole reason he is considered one of the top players of all time. The quotes from contemporaries add nothing to the article as they are basically just aimless fawning that give no insight into his accomplishments. The quote about basestealing technique is way to long for what it adds to the article. In general, block quotes are avoided unless they are crucial to understanding a particular point. Same goes for his speech on breaking the stolen base record. Much has been made of his claim to be the greatest and this should be discussed, but the entire quote is not necessary to do so.
• As hinted above, the career summary sections are probably too short and do not adequately explain how his performance helped the several pennant-winning teams he played on or how his performances stack up to other players throughout baseball history. There is also an over reliance on rate stats and counting stats versus arguably more useful sabermetric analysis and virtually no discussion of his defense.

Rickey Henderson is probably one of the greatest players in baseball history, but a person reading this article does not get a good sense of his value beyond the fact that he stole a lot of bases. Correcting the above issues would take this article a long way towards FA status, but even then I believe it would still fall short without a better narrative flow among other things. Indrian (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Illeism, malapropism and anecdotes contradicts itself?

How does the section "Illeism, malapropism and anecdotes" contradict itself? I assume that it's not just that Henderson contradicts himself but that the article itself contradicts itself.Greedyhalibut (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rickey_Henderson&diff=273887186&oldid=273866932. Timneu22 (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed - Needed to show that there were 2 different accounts: Verduci's and Henderson's.Greedyhalibut (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Position

It's always been my opinion that the infobox was supposed to offer an overview of a baseball playe's career; detail is left for the article. Rickey Henderson's infobox shows him as a Left fielder. He was the everyday starting center fielder when he was with the Yankees, and he played enough of the other two outfield positions to make the title "Left fielder" inaccurrate for him. "Outfielder" is the best, most accurate title for him. I've changed the infoboxes to reflect my opinion, however, it was undone by an argumentative editor wanting to war with me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

First, don't be such a jerk. I was argumentative? Trying to war with you? Hardly. Check the facts. Further, here is the information where the games played stats are listed (2,423 career games in left, and 404 in center or right). I actually don't care one way or another, I just know that the article already had this discussion and "left fielder" seemed the most appropriate. Timneu22 (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is common for those of us who grew up as New York Yankees fans to believe that ballplayers' careers start and end in pinstripes, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Although I see from the link provided above that this has been discussed, I don't see a reference for the number of games played at each position. Perhaps if we could find that and properly cite it, that would be sufficient to put the matter to rest?  Frank  |  talk  20:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerk? Me? I seem to recall that you, Bugs & Yankees10 were the ones issuing warnings on my talk page. As if your opinion matters more than mine. You make it sound as if "Outfielder" is inaccurrate. I believe that 400+ games in the other outfield positions is enough to show him as an "Outfielder" in his infobox, regardless of his team (by the way, Frank, I'm a Mets fan). "Left fielder" is incomplete.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there goes my attempt at lightening up the conversation. (As a side note, I have outgrown my own blind allegiance to the Yankees.) Seriously, though: If we have cites for number of games played, don't you think that 85% at left field is enough to call him a left fielder?  Frank  |  talk  21:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would add that there is no consensus shown on this talk page to make the change from "left fielder" to "outfielder". It would be best to discuss it here and achieve consensus rather than risk running afoul of WP:3RR or WP:EDITWAR.  Frank  |  talk  21:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No ill will toward you, Frank, I know what you were trying to do. Regardless, you make a valid point, whether or not you intended to. Even though he spent more time with the A's, Reggie Jackson chose to wear a Yankees hat on his Hall of fame plaque. Why do you suppose that is? The Yankees ARE the most popular team in the history of all professional sports (not an issue I care to debate), and a lot of people out there remember ballplayers by what he did with the Yankees. That argument aside, calling him an outfielder is an accurrate term regardless of whether or not 15% of them in a position other than left is enough to warrant distinction in anyone's mind. Limiting him to "Left fielder" is just wrong to me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnny, why are you trying to be a jerk. I didn't issue you a warning. You're making more of this than actually exists; it's ridiculous. I just told you that the issue was already discussed here and that "outfielder" wasn't the decision. I'm not going to revert your stupid edit because someone else will. Rickey played 15% of his games outside of left field. The argument on the archive says that "Pujols played that many at third base, but no one calls him an 'infielder'". Rickey was a DH a couple times. Should we make the position "Outfielder/DH"? Come on. Timneu22 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Timneu22 - you're not doing much to build consensus here, either. Sorry if I sound like I'm just casting stones here, but really the issue here is the article, not any one editor's opinion being right or wrong. We need to achieve a consensus. I'm trying to help this along here, and to be fair to Johnny, I admit I'm agreeing much more with "left fielder" than not, but your approach isn't helping. The "discussion" you mention is just someone repeating the same stuff; there's no citation and there doesn't seem to have been any consensus one way or the other. Also - keep in mind that WP:CONSENSUS can change. I'm not saying it has here, but it's simply not within policy to say "leave it alone, we discussed it before and you're wrong". Again - I pretty much agree with your position, but I also pretty much disagree with the approach you're taking. Let's look around for supporting citations and go from there. There's no need for anyone to attack anyone else.  Frank  |  talk  22:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Frank, I have stated — and it is true — that I really don't care one way or another. My approach that "isn't helping" is in direct response to Johnny, who has attacked me from the start, even though none of his accusations is true. Can't we all just grow up? I don't care one way or another, but Johnny shouldn't change without concensus. And he should stop blaming me for things I haven't done. Timneu22 (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's cool; just trying to establish consensus. Someone coming into this from the outside might not care to look for who started what; your previous edit summary was a bit provocative too. But as you say: let's all grow up and move the article forward, which is what it's all about. Hopefully Johnny agrees and we can put the bickering aside.  Frank  |  talk  23:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnny - I think you're right; the Yankees/Reggie point is useful in this discussion. I understand what you're saying about the Yanks, and in Reggie's case, I think it was because he was known as Mr. October, largely because of his Yankees performance. (On that note, remember the Mets' Dave Kingman, around the same time?) Anyway, as you note, a player can choose which team to represent, and in fact some choose no insignia when they are enshrined. Henderson appears to have chosen Oakland. But on to the position...on another page on the Hall of Fame web site, he is definitely described as a left fielder: Henderson and Rice are the first left fielders elected to the Hall of Fame in 20 years. In addition, we have Hall's drought in left ends with Rickey, Rice. Now, amazingly, there is no page yet for Henderson on the site, but it seems pretty universal that he is referred to as a left fielder by those that write about the sport and those who voted him in. Shouldn't that be sufficient for the infobox? We could then mention in the text that he played other positions too, including "a significant stint at...."  Frank  |  talk  22:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, mad props to the guy who added the picture of Rickey in a Mets uniform. Second, I would like to point out that in ALL cases for hall of famers, the hall of fame website lists one position as the player's primary position and one team as his primary team. Paul Molitor is listed as a Milwaukee Brewer and a DH. I think we can all agree that's wrong. Rickey's primary position was left fielder. If we use the position a player is inducted into the hall of fame as the measure of what is written in a player's infobox, then there are a lot of articles out there that need reediting. Babe Ruth's says right fielder; Willie Stargell's says left fielder; Carl Yaz's says left fielder. In all cases they were the player's "primary" position. I really hope no one agrees with doing that. I still say the infobox should say "Outfielder."--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

15 of 21 seasons in Milwaukee seems right to me for Paul Molitor; what would you prefer? Catfish Hunter did not pick a primary team; they may have assigned him one, but the plaque itself does not have any specific team's insignia on the cap and he didn't wear a specific team's cap at his induction. Besides, we're talking about Henderson here. We're not trying to rewrite the entire encyclopedia. "Left fielder" is more specific than "outfielder", and he played 85% of his games there (pending citations in reliable sources). It does seem to fit pretty well. Maybe we need a wider audience or a WP:30 on the matter.  Frank  |  talk  12:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The point I was making is that there seemed to be a level of contradiction with Molitor; he was primarily an infielder with the Brewers. He became a hall of fame DH with the Twins. Either way, we've all passed 4th grade math (I assume) and know what sets and subsets are. Left fielders are outfielders, but not all outfielders are left fielders. I believe that Rickey played enough center that the correct title for him would be "Outfielder." I'd like to also point out that I started a similar debate on Babe Ruth's site, and "Outfielder" seems to be the the concensus there.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that discussion at Talk:Babe Ruth, not that it is overly important. Keep in mind that we are discussing Henderson here, not the entirety of the members of the Hall of Fame. That discussion - if it needs to be had at all - would certainly be elsewhere. Here on this page, there doesn't seem to be any consensus at all...just two opposing viewpoints. Regarding your opinion that Henderson played "enough center" - can you quantify your concept of "enough"? And can you provide any citations that refer to him as other than a left fielder? That would certainly be helpful, and, after all, WP:V and WP:CITE are of paramount importance.  Frank  |  talk  23:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, the Ruth discussion is at mets=y|halloffame=yes|halloffame-importance=|bluejays=yes.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Stats?

Obviously, his stats are available elsewhere, but... I have a tough time imagining a comprehensive encyclopedia article on any baseball player without a table including that player's career stats. When the player in question is Rickey Henderson... O_o

I looked through the archive, and I see some talk about the lead, but nothing directly on point about his career stats. I'm not seriously the first person to mention that his stats are missing, am I? Aren't some of you editors baseball fans?!?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I generally cite WP:NOT#STATS as a reason to not include stats charts on wikipedia. I Think other articles that do it are wrong. My two cents. Timneu22 (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'd probably agree with that. We're talking about baseball here though. Baseball! I mean... I'm trying to keep the hyperbole to a bare minimum here, but seriously... how can anyone defend comprehensive baseball coverage that excludes stats?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking practice needs a lift

Please note that the many valuable links in such an article need to be undiluted by low-value links. Readers are, in fact, highly unlikely to click on anything, even on a good day. We editors tend to forget this.

IMO, the "hidden" years links should be introduced once, explicitly, or a representative sample placed unpiped in the "See also" section. This is more likely to generate clicks.

May I ask what the point of this hidden link is? On May 1, 1991, Henderson [[#Legacy|broke]] one of baseball's most noted records?

Who would guess from the display mode where the link goes? Can it be removed or a less cryptic pipe substituted?

Please reader WP:OVERLINK. You may also wish to take a peak at these exercises, which are not perfect and could do with some feedback on the talk page there. Thank you. 04:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

While some of your points may be true (#Legacy example, every year using the "by" template), you or someone else removed necessary links like Ricky Nelson; what is the reason for something like this? Timneu22 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It was marked in the edit summary that just wanted it confirmed that he was named after this Ricky Nelson, who seemed awfully young and novice for someone to be named after in 1958. I would apologise for any misunderstanding. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw the edit summary, but it didn't make sense. Whatever, no harm no foul. Timneu22 (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Arrogance

While I appreciate the recent edits to this article, I question this one. First, what's wrong with the ref? Secondly, it's true that people use that quote to show "see, he's arrogant!" I don't think removing all that text is the correct thing to do. Get a better ref, perhaps, but it's important to note that many people know Rickey only based on that quote, and think he's arrogant because of it. — Timneu22 · talk 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wizardman, did you see this comment? — Timneu22 · talk 21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a better ref, then we can keep it in. Tripod's just not a good ref, and since's it's a negative comment, it can't stay in the article until we find a good replacement. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this? "Solidified his reputation for arrogance." Again, thanks for making quality changes. You trying to get this to FA status? — Timneu22 · talk 23:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That works. Yes, I'm trying to see if we can get this to FA. Since the sources are fixed all that's left is the prose now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I made this change. By the way, the "secondardy bases" stat could probably use a reference. I wasn't able to find one in a quick search. — Timneu22 · talk 00:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Only thing I'm finding close to a cite is Bill James's abstract, which was copyright 2001 and still has Henderson behind Ruth. Secondary bases is a stat i've never really heard anything about, so I might just remove it. He has plenty of major records to highlight as it is. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article

Any progress on this? I know I haven't helped (sorry!). — Timneu22 · talk 13:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

This line: "On May 1, 1991, Henderson stole his 939th base to pass Lou Brock and become the sport's all-time stolen base leader." is incorrect. As noted on the Sophie Kurys page, Rickey Henderson didn't become the sport's all-time stolen base leader until some time in 1994, when Henderson passed Kurys's 1114 stolen bases. We need a specific date, but I'm unable to find any reference other than "it happened in 1994". Can anyone assist with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackFloridian (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This line: "Henderson had 468 more stolen bases in his career than Brock, one short of 50% more than the game's second-most prolific basestealer." It should read "...one short of 33% more..." Fifty percent more than Brock would make it 1,876 stolen bases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by hswolfmaniac (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC) -->

Decade

The Seattle Mariners section states that in 2000, Henderson became the third player to hit a home run in four different decades. But the decade started in 2001, not 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbuc14 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

OBP Error

The article says:

In 1999, he batted .315 with 37 steals and was seventh in the NL in on-base percentage — his .423 OBP was his ninth year in a row above .400.

And there are two citations! How can this be? His OBP was clearly .376 in 1998: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/henderi01.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.176.121 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• OAK1990R24HENDERSONASG.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

5000th K

Rick was Nolan Ryan’s 5000th K 2600:6C56:71F0:EB0:D592:1CFA:7424:857 (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Death

Hearing unconfirmed reports of Henderson’s death from former teammate Dave Winfield https://www.instagram.com/p/DD2UPzbuidg/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Page should probably be locked against further editing until better sources appear BigFISH496 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh shit, it might be true? I already protected the page for 24 hours, figuring we'd know one way or the other by then. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a feeling this may be another Johnny Gaudreau situation where it’s nothing but rumors for a day before the family releases a statement BigFISH496 (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

NY Post reporting it now. --SnakeOilSalesmen (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

https://nypost.com/2024/12/21/sports/rickey-henderson-baseball-legend-dead-at-65/ Dhawk790 (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Damn, depressing.-- Yankees10 19:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we wait for confirmation beyond NYP? They are of marginal reliability per WP:NYP. Dingers5Days (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I would wait for a statement from either MLB, the family or an MLB team BigFISH496 (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no it’s already been confirmed there’s no need to wait give his family some space 12.44.199.250 (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Point is a tad moot now, MLB has posted to their socials BigFISH496 (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)