Talk:Baseball/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Basepath lengths for other leagues?

Yeah, I was just wondering, the 90 feet to first/second/third/home is what is used in MLB. But perhaps we should state that that may be different in Little League (I know it's different in LL) or high school (not sure). I know that college uses the same difference. But I think we should mention what the other variations. are.--Gamingboy 17:54, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think its probably only worth mentioning the very common one here. Yes, high schools do use 90 feet, so do all professional leagues I know of besides MLB. Using smaller size fields is pretty traditional for childrens sports, including soccer, and american football, I don't know if we should confuse people by simply calling this an mlb regulation field, when basically everyone but childrens leagues use it. Perhaps a good place to add the rare exceptions would be Baseball field. —siroχo 21:31, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

"mlb regulation field"--no. Most BB is played outside of mlb (high school, college, pony league, AAU etc etc etc) and all use 90 feet. It is said by those who wax poetic or spiritual about baseball that there is something mystical about the 90-foot distance--just right for all manner of great, bonehead, and esp. close plays--and always has been!--Buckboard 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Those wondering about LL base paths they are as follows. Between all bases it is 70 ft. (that is for 11,12 year olds in my area) and pitchers mound is 55 ft. - Brian jan. 1st 2006

recent edits

Congratulations on this being a featured site! That is fantastic. Sports shopping and sports store are valid categories I believe, and was surprised they were taken out. What do other people think? Do you know how many people buy sports gifts for others (not to mention themselves) in this country (world), and those topics contained resource value talking about shopping comparison sites etc. and several examples. Any post we do has to be valuable for the Wikipedia reader on that topic otherwise we don't do it. Thanks!

What the heck is beepball? Unless someone writes an aricle explaining such a game and therein makes a case for its popularity (I've never heard of it), I'd like to delete that from the article. --Locarno 13:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of God Bless America on the main page. Don't get me wrong: I love the song, I love God, I love America; I just don't think this is important enough to baseball. It is not (yet) an established tradition, nor is it so readily identified with the stretch as the article implies. (For example, in Minnesota we sing God Bless the USA after Take Me Out to the Ball Game). I think this would not have even been inserted if not for Ronan Tynan. I will delete it unless a case is made here in the next three days.. --Locarno 17:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think we need to resist the temptation to add interesting peripheral information, such as the recent additions to "History" about the staticity of the rules. This article is too big already! I moved that to baseball rules. --Locarno 13:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Howzzat?

I mentioned that I would try and frame a sentence about the two points I've raised above. How are the following?

color="teal">ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:44, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

This is all already covered in the "Team at Bat" section. Instead of thinking of new ways to word it, instead answer for me, what is not clear in that section? --Locarno 19:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(One more thing: if six umpires are used, what do the extra two do?)

The fifth and sixth umpires are stationed in the outfield near the foul lines. They make fair/foul and catch/no catch calls in the outfield, as well as watching for the ball going out of play or fan interference. Also, if a base umpire needs to leave the infield to make a call (like near the foul fence), the right field umpire may "rotate" in to cover a potential play at first base. All in all, the details of six-man umpiring mechanics are far too much detail for this article. Maybe umpire mechanics (baseball)?

No I do not wish it be up here, I was just curious about the umpires, as it wasn't covered in the umpire article. I edited some of the text which I found to be a little unclear. It may require some copyediting though. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:25, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I understand...any other questions, feel free to ask. --Locarno 02:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your edits regarding this, Nick. Please focus on asking questions on what is unclear to you, because I think everything you addressed is crystal clear. Here's the existing text, with relevant sections bolded:

The ultimate goal of the team at bat is to score runs. The team at bat sends its nine players up to home plate as batters in an order called a lineup. Each team sets its batting lineup at the beginning of the game and may not change the order, except by sending in substitute players. A substitute player fills the same spot in the order as the player he replaced; however, he is not required to play the same position in the field. After the ninth player has batted, the order returns to the beginning with the first player in the lineup. Batting out of turn is not allowed. Once a runner reaches home plate, they score a run, and then are "removed" from the bases (they go sit down) and the next player in the lineup bats.

Each player's turn at the plate is a plate appearance. When the batter hits a fair ball, he must run to first base, and may continue or stop at any base unless he is put out. A successful hit where the batter reaches only first base is a single; if he reaches second base, a double; or third base, a triple. A hit that allows the batter to touch all bases in order on the same play is a home run, whether or not the ball is hit over the fence. Once a runner is held to a base, he may attempt to advance at any time, but is not required to do so unless the batter or another runner displaces him.

Depending on the way the ball comes off the bat, the play is called something different. A batted ball is called a fly ball if it was hit in a way causing the fielder to catch it on its descent, or a line drive if it is hit in the air, but on a line. A batted ball which is not hit into the air, and which touches the ground within the infield before it can be caught, is called a ground ball.

Once the batter and any existing runners have all stopped at a base or been put out, the ball is returned to the pitcher, and the next batter comes to the plate. This continues until three outs have been recorded, at which point all runners are removed from the bases and the teams exchange sides for the next half-inning. After the opposing team bats in its own order and three more outs are recorded, the first team's batting order will continue again from where it left off.

Locarno, the reason why I edited the text was that the current text did not convey the exact information I was looking for (Alas, I know I am getting on yor nerves). It did not strike me that the runners are seated. To clarify what happens, I expanded the sentence. (I hope that my edit was not misleading). As I have never watched a baseball game, I thought that my edit would be more clear to people like me (especially people from South Asia). Anyways, that was all that I needed to know in the page, so let me know when you are fully done, I'll give another reading to the article. If the page size is <32 kb, I'll vote in affirmative, the next time it comes. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I think your question is still answered by the (they go sit down) part in the article. Does this answer all your objections? I'm going to try to fix all the other objections that others stated, but I could use some help from Siroxo or anyone else. This article is almost ready. Also, I've worked on a lot of the linked articles; I invite you to come criticize them as well, if you feel like it--particularly Interference (baseball), obstruction (baseball), or anything in the Baseball rules category. Thanks again for your perspective! --Locarno 20:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding this "They go sit down" section, I've reworded that sentence a bit, to convey that the next batter does not necessarily come up (passe d balls/wild pitches, or even stealing home). Also I changed the notion of "sit down" to "leave play". Also, sorry for my absence, I was away from computers for a few days. —siroχo

Progress on To Do items

I think we're done with "Move rules and details from the play of the game section to individual articles...". Agree? --Locarno 16:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. We should keep in mind that people have a tendency to add these things here every once in a while, so it'll be an ongoing task to do minor filtering for this article, but it can be striken from to do. Anybody on the baseball field diagram yet? —siroχo

I also refined the history/international baseball section, I'll strike that one from the to do, but please proofread it also. --Locarno 21:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unaddressed objections?

(Locarno 21:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)) We should decide if these objections should be "fixed" or not, or if we've already addressed them sufficiently. Please use strikethrough as before to denote done:

• Object. Although the writing is good, the article mostly touches upon the rules of play, and how a game is played, save one section on Pro baseball. Maybe this page could better be organized like the country pages, with the main article briefly explaining all the aspects (including history, culture, etc.) and with separate articles dedicated to the subtopics. A minor objection is that all measures are only given in imperial units; metric units should also be given. Jeronimo 10:14, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  This is basically dealt with. —siroχo

  Agreed, this section is much improved since April. --Locarno 17:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Excellently written article. Not a word about college baseball, but given how long the article is already, I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. Isomorphic 05:52, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  Added a link, but there is no need for specific mention in the article. —siroχo

• Could we standardise the punctuation? We use for em dashes both "--" and " - " We also have a usage of the second person that could be eliminated. -- Emsworth 23:59, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

  Fixed dashes and second person. --Locarno 17:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Cuba's dominance in the World Cup is mentioned, but the historical dominance in the Major Leagues of New York is not. (removed Cuba)
• "In the United States, baseball has often been called the "national pastime", and the total attendance for Major League games is more than that of all other American professional sports combined." Surely, this is because each team plays 162 games each season? The article should make mention of the same.

  I don't think this matters as much. Clearly there is a demand for these games. I often wonder what baseball attendance would be if each team only played 8 home games per year...probably would also get 60,000 or more just like football--or if the NFL played 6 games per week, attendance would probably fall below the average for baseball--there's no way to say for sure, but that's my hypothetical situation. Anyway, the statement is factually correct, and I believe the article does a good job at saying that Baseball is very popular in the U.S. while also stating that the NFL is more popular by some measurements. Nichalp, as an East Asian, would not likely think that football or baseball are necessarily more popular from this article alone---right? --Locarno 18:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  As the article stands at this moment, it is not presenting the fact that the NFL can be more popular; it's simply stating that MLB is the most popular bar none no questions asked. The most recent edit to this statement mentions that it was discussed in here, but I do not see any discussion regarding the phrasing of this. I'd like to point out that the phrase "by any measurement" sounds a lot like something a baseball fan would say. Nothing wrong with baseball fans, but it's not entirely a neutral statement in my mind. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 17:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  You may wish to reread the introduction. It states that in the US baseball attendance over the season is highest, but that football and stock car racing are more popular for TV viwers. The "By any measure" clause doesn't refer to american sports. —siroχo 18:03, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

• The article refers in all cases only to individuals of the masculine gender (as in "his"); as females find themselves capable of playing the sport, "his or her," and the like, would be preferable.

  Does anyone know where the Wiki policy is on gender-inclusive language? This article would be much worse if we had to write "his or her" all the time. --Locarno 17:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Thats still being decided, and there probably won't be an official policy for a while, so since "he" is techinically the gender neutral pronoun for english (even if people dislike it), I think this is not an actionable objection by Wikipedia's style right now. —siroχo

• The layout of images in the section "The play of the game" seems messy. -- Emsworth 01:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Gameplay Overview" section removed

I removed the General Overview section, (incorporating some of it into the intro part of the Gameplay section, now a subsection called "General structure"). After reading through the removed section several times, and attempting to make it less cryptic, I realized that baseball simply cannot be explained with so few sentences. We would have to expand that section, eventually duplicating much info presented in the article. What is now called the "General structure" section adresses how a game is played without going into details. We will have to continue refining the presentation of information to attempt to accomplish the goal of General Overview in this section, without being so nondescript. —siroχo

pix

The new pic of the pitcher's motion looks to be backwards to me. I prefer the old one. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:29, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

The new one is, however, a better example of a general pitching motion than the old one. —siroχo

Ready for renomination on FAC?

I think this is ready for renomination, I think everything within reason has been fixed, but I'll wait to see if anyone points anything out for a bit before doing so. —siroχo 05:22, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear! --Locarno 15:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've renominated it, everyone go support it if you think it deserves it. --Locarno 14:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating it, it slipped my mind —siroχo

• I'm surprised it wasn't already an FA. Krupo 05:29, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

attendance figures

From Kenn:

2003 total attendance, American professional sports (final digits rounded)

BASEBALL: 2400 games, 67 million attendance, 28,000 average/game

BASKETBALL: 1200 games, 20 million attendance, 17,000 average/game

FOOTBALL: 250 games, 17 million attendance, 67,000 average/game

HOCKEY: 1200 games, 20 million attendance, 16,000 average/game

SOCCER: 150 games, 2 million attendance, 15,000 average/game

NON-BASEBALL COMBINED: 2800 games, 60 million attendance, 22,000 average/game

In other words, when all other pro sports are COMBINED, baseball has FEWER games, but MORE attendance. Does this settle it once and for all?? Revolver 18:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well ... no. Because in terms of games played, the NBA and NHL swamp all the other (non-baseball) sports. There aren't enough NFL games to register (and college football, which is often fantastically well attended, and probably as good quality as AAA baseball, is conveniently omitted by virtue of its amateur status. College baseball is neither as popular or as good. (Almost no one jumps from college to the majors, John Olerud not withstanding) . So you *might* argue that baseball was more popular than hockey or basketball. Except, those two games are usually played in tiny arenas, so total the attendance, it might be argued (I've no idea either way) does not actually reflect the popularity. It's a meaningless claim, with no useable metric to decide it one way or the other, so lets leave it out. GWO

The above figures do not count the very small leagues (arena football, lacrosse, etc.) If you count these, then technically the others combined just slightly surpass baseball, by a couple million at most. The average attendance edge would not be changed, though. And I think the "major 5" (MLB, NFL, NBA, MLS, and NHL) are what most people have in mind.

I just reverted a change that took auto racing as a sport that has surpassed baseball. Auto racing gets better ratings on average than the "Game of the Week" broadcasts for baseball. --Woohookitty 8 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

Pitching

I know next to nothing about Baseball, but I was curious about this when I read the article:

Is there a limit on how many times a pitcher can pitch the ball? The article mentions that there is no limit on the number of pitchers that can be used. Is there a limit on how many times a pitcher can pitch? For example, in one-day cricket, a bowler (the cricket analogue of a pitcher) can only pitch 60 balls in a game (that is an over-simplified statement, but that is the general idea).

Also, can the pitcher keep pitching continuously until the pitcher is changed? Again, in cricket, you can only pitch 6 times in a row, and then another pitcher takes your place. He will pitch 6 times and then you can come back and pitch another 6 times, and so on. Is there anything like that in Baseball, or can you keep pitching?

Also, who makes the decision on when to change the pitcher, etc? The coach?

--ashwatha 08:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, there's no limit on how many pitches a pitcher can throw, except that his arm will eventually fatigue. These days, most starting pitchers will throw around 90-110 pitches per start, but could throw as many as 150. There's some evidence that these workloads can cause serious arm damage though. A pitcher will usually pitch continuously, until he is replaced ("relieved") because of tiredness or ineffectiveness. Once he leaves the game, he can't come back and pitch again. He could, in theory, stay in the game playing another position, and then return and pitch again later. This never happens. -- GWO

WELL, YES IT DOES HAPPEN, JUST NOT VERY OFTEN. At all levels the game is played you may sometimes see a fielder go out of the game (usually an outfielder) and the pitcher go out to play that position. A relief pitcher is used to get a specific batter out, then a double switch is pulled with the original pitcher going back to the mound and a new fielder inserted. AS I said, not often, but I've seen it many times over the years, including MLB.--Buckboard 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As this article is about more than professional baseball, the same applies to amateurs, except that most amateur leagues have a reentry rule which allows any starter, even the pitcher, to reenter the game after being removed. Pitchers in amateur leagues will more often stay in the game after they are done pitching. The manager (baseball's name for the head coach) makes the decision at all levels. --Locarno 16:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --ashwatha 19:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fielding positions

Just had a question about the naming of fielding positions in Baseball - the article says that the second baseman and the shortstop stand on either side of the second base (one to the right and one to the left). Is that right and left from the catcher's perspective? For instance, in cricket, fielding positions are named from the batter's perspective, so the naming of fielding positions depends on whether the batter is right-handed or left-handed. Is that true in Baseball too? If they are being named from the catcher's perspective, the batter being right-handed or left-handed obviously doesn't matter. --ashwatha 16:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is from the catcher's perspective, though the article also describes their positioning in more absolute terms:

The second baseman and the shortstop position themselves in the gaps on either side of second base, toward first and third base, respectively.

Does that answer your question? - jredmond 17:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the descriptions in absolute terms. Thanks for the clarification. --ashwatha 19:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should we mention somewhere in here about "shifts" where the fielders move around to try to stop particular hitters? Right now, Barry Bonds often faces this shift. --Woohookitty 20:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's already something like that:

The locations of the fielders are not specified by the rules. Players often shift their positioning in response to specific batters or game situations, and they may exchange positions with one another at any time.

I'd prefer this version to anything specifically mentioning Barry Bonds, since teams often shift their fielders from batter to batter (and sometimes pitch to pitch, especially if there are baserunners). - jredmond 20:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if your remarks implies a distaste for an individual, which if so is inappropriate for the article. But if not, it should mention the big three who have historically had shifts put on for them--Ted Williams, Willie McCovey, and Barry Bonds.--Buckboard 18:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the sentence The right fielder generally has the strongest arm of all the outfielders due to the need to make throws on runners attempting to take third base. This is similar to the description of the center fielder and is a big part of playing right field.

Request for more info

I don't feel expert enough to edit the article, but it seems to me it lacks explanations on force situations and force outs.

Should the history section include something about Abner Doubleday and Cooperstown?

According to Bill Bryson's "Made In America" p276, Abner Doubleday nor Cooperstown had anything to do with baseball until the National League stated that baseball's rules had been layed down by Doubleday in Cooperstown but supplying no substantiation. Bryson goes on "For one thing Doubleday was not at Cooperstown in 1839... At his death, Doubleday had left sixty-seven diaries, and not once in any of them did he mention baseball... not once in their thirty years of close friendship had Doubleday thought to mention to Mills [president of the National League] that he had invented the game." He goes own to show that the story was dug up twenty years later by a Cooperstown businessman to promote his flagging hotel. "Today even the Hall of Fame doesn't pretend that Doubleday has any connection with the birth of the game." So it seems like one of those bits of Americana made up to bolster a small town. Yes, this probably should be discussed on the main page given how many people think Doubleday invented baseball, but it should rely on more than my single source. --Schwern

What about famous rivalries like Red Sox/Yankees and Cubs/Cards?

The Basic Definition

The basic definition "Baseball is a team sport, in which a fist-sized ball is thrown by a player called a pitcher and hit with a bat" seems like it's lacking something. There needs to be mention of who hits it and what happens then: perhaps "hit with a bat by a player from the opposing team" or "attempted to be hit with a bat by a player from the opposing team".

Em Dashes in the Statistics Section

There are too many em dashes in a few sentences in the statistics section; they should be limited to 2 per sentence. —Wayward 08:28, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

ADMINS-PLEASE SAVE THIS PAGE!

Ok-Someone has been vandalizing this page-see history. Admins-please take action against this person as they are destroying some of Wikipedia's best work.

The vandalism you saw was actually fixed nearly two hours ago. I suspect you're seeing an outdated cached version. I've gone ahead and purged this article's cached copy, so if you hit reload on your browser the article should look fine now. -- Hadal 03:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk about how every stadium is unique

In the "Baseball's Unique Style" section, i think it would be good to have a description of how different the stadiums are from each other. For example, while playing one basketball arena is pretty much the same, at least in terms of gameplay, as any other arena, in baseball there are all sorts of variations from park to park.

Who hasn't heard an announcer say, "That flyout would have been a home run if this were a home game" (or vice versa)? And dimensions are just the beginning:

Dealing with the Green Monster at Fenway Park, catching a popup in the vast foul territory off third base in Oakland, hitting one off a catwalk at the Metrodome .. the hill in Houston.. From 1932 to 1973, there were stone monuments in fair territory in Yankee Stadium's center field. What sport can compare to that?

Actually, I started a section on it, but I really think it should be its own article, so I will have a short summary in the baseball article and then I'll point it to the full article on baseball parks. I think it's big enough. --Woohookitty 08:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roster and Trading rule

Can anyone explain MLB's roster and trading rules? I basically understand the 25-man roster, the 15-day disabled list, traded, sent to minors, but what about 40-man roster, 60-day disabled list, waviers, options, designated for assignment, outrighted to minors, trading rules, trading deadlines (and trades made after trading deadlines), players rights, etc? --Thisisskip 15:34:33, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Sure, see new article: Major League Baseball transactions. Please, all, come and contribute to this new article. --Locarno 16:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

overbloated and romantic

IMHO, the article has become overbloated with esoteric (to the beginner) details which could be addressed in other pages, and also has several sections which do little more than rhapsodize about the virtues of the game. While I would agree, these romantic passages are kind of out of place in an encyclopedia article. (Think of it this way: EVERY game is "not just a game", and everyone knows this. Also, everyone thinks there is something special and romantic and unique about their favourite sport, so going on about it here doesn't add much. I don't care much for basketball or American football, so when I read an encyclopedia article about it, I primarily want information and a minimum of preaching. The latter could go on Baseball mystique, e.g.)

In short, some editing is needed. Revolver 03:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right. For example, there are those who think soccer is wonderful. God only knows why. And there are those who think baseball is akin to watching paint dry. Wahkeenah 03:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking back, it's not *that* bad. But still, it's 50K and a just getting large to handle. I'm an avid baseball fan, and reading through it from top to bottom seemed to tax my concentration, so I'm just thinking about someone not familiar. (I'm not saying that anything is irrelevant...just that sometimes the heart of the matter can be more straightforward, even just a rewording or combining 2 sentences into one.) Revolver 04:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What struck me about the article is its inconsistency. It starts by trying to explain the game to someone from Mars who has never heard of baseball, then gets into details of the game's history (the part I like) and then off on the romantic tangent (which is perhaps a bit much). I wonder if a separate section is needed for the rules of baseball and other important games like rounders, cricket, etc. Wahkeenah 04:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting. I don't know if there are any other articles dealing with rules. I think there should be a brief explanation of rules, but not complete detail. (Is someone who only knows cricket really going to appreciate the "3rd strike when the ball hits the ground first" rules? This seems to be something that could go on a separate article. Baseball history, statistics, and positions (which are more than just rules) etc. all have their own longer articles, so why not rules? If I were explaining the rules to someone who knew nothing (which I've done), I don't mention the "3rd strike when ball hits the ground first" or foul tips or interference, generally. Revolver 04:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

For starters, I don't much care for the intro to the article, although I'm not quite sure how I would word it precisely. However, I think it would take me fewer than 5 paragraphs and the TOC box to get to the point of the game, which is to win by outscoring the other team. In the official baseball rules, the first rule generally defines the game in a single sentence, and the second rule defines the objective, which is to win by outscoring the opponent, again in one sentence. That, of course, is the objective for most any team sport. However, in that rule the term "runs" is introduced, thus distinguishing the game right away from other sports (aside from cricket) where terms like "goals" and "points" are used. Wahkeenah 04:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

My two cents:

• Anyone interested in trying a simplistic explanation of the game can find an attempt toward that end at Simplified baseball rules. Good luck.
• I am not convinced that the article is too long, but am open to suggestions. Encyclopedia articles on major topics are often long, even longer than this one. I cannot remember ever reading a long encyclopedia article from beginning to end. Is that really the point?
• Seems to me that the detail of game play is appropriate, it certainly needs to be somewhere other than Baseball rules and/or Official Baseball Rules. Please take note the number of questions in the Talk above, even with this level of detail, suggesting the need for such detail.
• All romance aside, I believe the baseball's influence on culture is important. If the romance is too thick, thin it, but there is more to baseball than the game, and where that content should be included is a matter of discussion. The content is not meant to preach, but provide information relevant for an encyclopedia. Currently, the content captures the essence of baseball in our modern culture. We miss part of the point to say that baseball is just about the game: in other words, baseball has an influence on culture, outside of the game. To say that soccer, football, tennis, NASCAR, have other impacts on culture is precisely the point for placing those impacts in those articles.
• The article needs an introduction to bring cohesion to the many topics explored.

-Steven McCrary 18:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between describing the impact of a game on culture, and simply extolling about its virtues, with the clear implication that it is superior to other sports. Revolver 03:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, but I fail to see how it applies in this case. The implication of superiority is unintentional (even if baseball is better ;-), and after reading the article again, I believe unfounded, if a better idea exists, get it out here so we can see it. Steven McCrary 13:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

File:BIOB.JPG

The Way: "Before I say anything, do anything, or try anything, I say to myself, Is it in the best interest of baseball?'"

Well, I don't know about that, I just I try to live by the credo indicated to the right. Wahkeenah 03:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That is funny! Steven McCrary 13:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Big Inning Image

File:In the Big Inning.JPG

"In the Big Inning" - How some fans view the game.

This image seems out of place to me. I could certainly be wrong about this, any other thoughts? Steven McCrary 15:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Out of place in what sense? It's from the Diamonds Are Forever traveling exhibit from the early 1990s, and can be interpreted either as a sincere belief of the greatness of baseball, or as a satire of those who think that way. That's why I put it next to the bloviating section on how wonderful baseball is (I think so too, but not everyone does). Wahkeenah 16:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I put it next to history. Oops! Well, use your best judgment. Wahkeenah 16:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, objection withdrawn.Steven McCrary 19:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think subduing the caption helps. I could see where the previous caption might have raised an eyebrow or two. d:) Wahkeenah 20:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Baseball vs. NASCAR

Q: What do you get when you have a speedway grandstand full of NASCAR fans? A: One full set of teeth.

Perhaps

If the last person to edit the article thinks that baseball is more retarded than themselves they should remember to check their spelling before they post. Lasy is generaly spelled "LAZY".

Maybe that's the British spelling. d:) Wahkeenah 03:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

and generaly is generally spelled "generally".  :) Gillean666 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Auto Racing ahead of Baseball in TV Ratings: NOT TRUE!

Baseball says NASCAR's TV claims are off track

In short: NASCAR does not include Baseball's regional coverage or playoffs, but does include NASCAR's playoffs and special events.

As a result, I've made the necessary changes.

International Rankings

I haven't been able to find official international rankings, although according to the International Baseball Federation, Cuba has won the last six World Cups, so I presume it's number one. This article seems to be mostly based around the U.S. major leagues; it would be interesting to read more about international tournaments, and have a table of international rankings. Ben Arnold 12:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about international rankings... But if you're suggesting that Cuba's having won 6 World Cups makes their baseball program superior to the American major leagues, keep in mind that major leaguers as a general rule would not be playing in those World Cups. The American major leagues are the epitome of the game. However, I can't argue that there needs to be a lot more written about baseball in other lands, such as Japan, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and other Latin American countries where there is fervor for the game. Wahkeenah 13:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

American sports are different from British sports in that there's not a lot of international competition between countries. Generally, all the best players from around the world come to the U.S. to play in the major leagues. Most baseball fans probably don't even know there's a Baseball World Cup. Next year's World Baseball Classic will be the first real attempt to stage an international tournament with top-level players. -- 70.27.57.22 05:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Origins of baseball

I saw the above link on the reference desk and was surprised not to find it linked in this article. Could someone with a little more baseball knowledge give it a nice place here? The ref desk question was about who invented the game. Please include that here too if it hasn't been already. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

So what's stopping you from doing it? Wahkeenah 19:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is included. In the "History" section, it says "see main ariticle: history of baseball"; that link is a list of the articles in the history series and the first link is "Origins of baseball".--CrazyTalk 21:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Rounders first mention in the English language is in 1755. Baseball and Town ball appear before that so it is incorrect to say that Baseball had its origin in Rounders. It would be correct to say that they had common origins.

Baseball's "Uniqueness"

I don't want to make waves by actually editing the article to reflect my own views on this, but I want to point out problems with the comments:

Baseball has a perennial attraction, summarized below in Baseball's unique style, unlike any other sport.

and then pretty much all of the points listed in the section Baseball's unique style. While baseball is indeed unique in the context of major American sports, it has much in common with cricket, including every one of the points cited as being a distinguishing feature that makes baseball "unique" among sports. Rather than a blanket statement that baseball is unique amongst [all] sports, I'd rather see the statement edited to say that baseball is unique amongst American sports, but that it shares many of its distinguishing features with cricket. However, I'd rather allow someone with more of an interest in baseball and less of an interest in cricket make the call as to whether this is a necessary edit for this article. My own interests, lying more in cricket than baseball, could easily be seen as biased if I go ahead and make the change. -dmmaus 23:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Baseball is not only unique in America, it is uniquely American, also being popular in Japan and Latin America, of course. That part of the article is a bit gushy. Give it your best shot. Wahkeenah 03:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I cannot object to whatever the facts are about what baseball shares with cricket. I know almost nothing of cricket, so I am not qualified to commment. The introduction serves the purpose of describing the near "romance" between many Americans and baseball. Any improvement along that line is welcome. Steven McCrary 19:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I've gone ahead and made a couple of changes to the Introduction and Baseball's unique style sections. Hopefully these are not too drastic. (I also did a general copyedit on the Introduction to make it flow better.) -dmmaus 22:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that as bat-and-ball games go, cricket is more of a cousin than a sibling to baseball, and I made that slight change. Softball, stickball, etc. are more like siblings. Rounders is more like a half-sibling. Hopefully we won't get into a "family feud" on that bit of minutiae. Anyway, it looks good. Cricket is as passionately followed by its fans as baseball is. Wahkeenah 05:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, that's a good call. I agree. -dmmaus 06:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This article should be called 'Baseball in the USA'

This article is amateurishly US-centric, considering that baseball is (apparently) the single most popular sporting game in Japan, is the national game of Cuba (olympic baseball champions), etc. If the US really is the de facto centre of baseball in the world, and the importance of the olympic baseball medal is (like the olympic soccer medal) relatively unimportant, then this should be stated in the opening paragraph of an article called 'Baseball in the USA', rather than sort of tacitly acknowledged...

This article needs a global outlook - 'what baseball means to the world' - or it needs to be explicitly stated that this article is simply about baseball in the USA. Plus the 'History of Baseball' section's relationship to articles such as 'History of Baseball in the United States' and 'History of Baseball outside of the United States' is unclear. All of this information needs to be cleaned up and reorganised. Colonel Mustard 05:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Then do it. The reason why it's been US centric is because it's been basically just US editors on it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, there's a lot of American ballplayers in their prime fleeing to places like Japan where they can get a lot more money. Wahkeenah 09:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings! Great suggestion, however even though I do agree that the article is US-centric, I am concerned about renaming it. My concerns is that part of the reason for baseball's US-centricity is that baseball started in the US-a historical fact. Therefore, of necessity, the history of baseball is going to begin in the US. I am not opposed to moving some parts of the article to a 'baseball in the USA' page, but those moves could hurt this page, so I recommend caution. Steven McCrary 14:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Baseball vs. Football

I'm not sure we can fairly compare t.v. ratings of the two sports, considering one season is 15 games (or whatever, who cares about football) long and the other is 162. Sylvain1972 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yogi Berra Quotes

I think we should remove the Yogi Berra quotes. They're funny, but unencyclopedic and generally irrelevant to the places they're in. Borisblue 00:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I second this opinion. Yogi has become a kind of walking urban legend; anything anybody hears (or makes up) that has a kind of comical, self-contradictory, Zen-like flavor automatically gets attributed to him. I think it probably has something to do with Joe Garagiola making him the butt of his after-dinner comedy shtick. Anyway, as Yogi never said but gets endlessly quoted anyway, “I never said half them things I said.” And then even the misquotes get misquoted, like the one attributed to him here: ”Baseball is 90% mental—the other half is physical,” a mangled (and weaker and less funny) version of the original line, ”Ninety percent of baseball is half mental.” I say chuck ’em all out, except on Yogi’s own page—and even there, only with a disclaimer to the effect that falsely attributing these things to him has become a widespread popular pastime. Dodiad 12:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Potential correction

I'm not certain of this, so I didn't want to edit it myself, but in the Batting section it reads:

 "...the count is always given balls first, then strikes..."

I believe in Japan this is not true--they show strikes, then balls when displaying the count on TV. I don't know if any other countries use this convention as well.

Three things

1. There's an important element of baseball that this page currently lacks: Scandals in recent times. Specifically, I'm referring to betting on baseball (e.g. Pete Rose) and the doping scandals and their aftermath. Possible related discussions could include (a) comparing the current MLB doping penalties to those in other sports and (b) the controversy surrounding statistics on implicated (or potentially implicated) players, whether or not such players should be inducted into/removed from the Hall of Fame, etc.

2. This article needs a link to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum (http://www.nlbm.com/s/index.cfm).

3. The paragraph on the World Series has many typos, but I don't have time to correct them right now.

Suburban 00:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, scandals works better as a separate article that we can link from here or from the history of baseball page. I can see mentioning it in the history of baseball section, but beyond that, it should be its own article. As for the Negro League Museum, we have an article on the Negro Leagues where that would fit better. I'll take a look at the World Series part right now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually removed the World Series section. Again, it has it's own article. We don't need it here and what was here was awful as you said. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

2 questions

Hi!I'm a baseball fan from Austria. I have 2 questions, and I would really apprechiate it, if you can answer me!1.:Is the strikezone between the two knees of the batter? 2.: How is the Team LOB calculated? Mfg, --PhilG 13:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phil! The strike zone's vertical dimensions run from the mid-point of the torso (around the uniform numbers) to the "hollow below the knee," according to the official definition at MLB.com. I don't know if that means the top knee or the bottom knee or somewhere in-between. Because the batter stands up when preparing to hit, I can't imagine the vertical distance between the knees would be that much. I suggest writing a message on the Usenet group rec.sport.officiating if you need further clarification.

The bottom of the strike zone should be determined by the front knee; that is, the knee closest to the pitcher.

Team left-on-base is calculated simply by adding all the runners stranded at the end of each inning. For example, if a team has runners on first and third with two out, and the batter then strikes out, the team is "credited" with 2 LOB. If the bases were loaded at the time, it would be 3 LOB. -- Mwalcoff 04:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

birthplace?

If baseball is first mentioned in england, and shown to be played in england almost 100 years before it can be shown to be played in the US, how is the US the birthplace of baseball? WookMuff 21:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The US is where the rules were first codified and the game first played seriously. No one knows what the "base ball" mentioned in Jane Austen's novel really consisted of. Nowadays, everyone recognizes baseball has its origin in cricket and rounders. But there was a time when Americans, eager to prove a purely indigenous origin of the game, gave official sanction to the myth that Abner Doubleday invented the game. That's why the Baseball Hall of Fame is in Cooperstown, New York, Doubleday's hometown. -- Mwalcoff 04:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose they were not too keen on admitting that their game is derived from a game played by English schoolgirls. TharkunColl 11:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And soccer is a game played by American schoolgirls, what's your point? R'son-W 08:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Extra Innings

The main article states:

"In the case of a tie, additional innings are played until one team comes out ahead at the end of an inning (if the visitors are ahead) or in an incomplete inning (if the home team scores to take the lead in its half of an extra inning, the game ends at that point)."

This sentence is confusing, but I read it to mean that an extra inning can be incomplete, which is incorrect. A game going into extra innings is, by definition, tied. An incomplete inning can only occur when the home team leads going into the top half of the ninth inning and the visiting team fails to score any runs. Am I missing something?

"Incomplete" as opposed to "complete" which means both teams had a chance to bat. So if one team does not get a chance to bat (which happens often) it is thus incomplete. Am I missing something? Please sign your name with four tildes. TommyBoy76 17:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

I'm not quite sure what complete means but, there can't be an incomplete extra inning because the visiting side always bats first and they are tied when they do. No matter what happpens, the mone team will have a chance to win or tie in the bottom of the inning.ch 18:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I don't think I know the point anymore. What are we discussing? My explanation above was to defend that there is no such thing as a tie. If the away team is ahead, the home team has the last chance. Whether the home team pulls through with that last chance or not, it still makes the inning complete. If the home is team is ahead, then the Top of the 9th inning is the away team's last chance. If it the chance is lost, that inning goes incomplete. If tied, they go into extra innings, playing by the rules above. tgs

origins....again (I know, very boring)

I just took a look at the entry for football (soccer) [[1]]. It references the origins of that sport as over 2000 years old in the form of the chinese game of cuju. I suggest this is a description of a generic activity but nonetheless it gets into the article. Other points of historical reference are the first use of the name of the sport and the first published rules. Naturally these are historical references and do not tally with modern usage or experience. The first published rules of football for example describe a game rather different to the modern game of soccer.

Applied to baseball:

Generic bat and ball games (already covered) [[2]]

The first rules of 'baseball' - would appear to be 'Ball mit Freystäten (oder das englische Base-ball' (1796).

The first use of the name - apparently 1748 letter (as in article)

It seems to me if baseball had remained and developed on the European Continent (with further codification etc.) the origins of baseball would nonetheless have remained clear and as set out above. The origins of baseball can only be described as 'murky' or 'vague' (as they often are) from an American point of view.

As it is baseball as organised competition and professional sport developed in the United States and this should be referenced distinctly from 'origins' as with other sports.

There have always been a couple of competing mythologies surrounding baseball, one English which has baseball descending from 'rounders' [[3]] and the other American which has baseball as an American invention. If there's one place on the web you should be able to escape this kind of thing it should surely be here.

Basically, the origin of baseball seems to be English baseball (which also gave rise to rounders, rather than the other way round). So in summary baseball was invented as a pastime and a game in England and revived (or maintained) as a pastime and a game in the United States, and further, created there as a modern sport.

NPOV

Comparisons to democracy and the human condition

Baseball is a demanding sport in which perfection is impossible: Baseball's best batters gain hits only 30% of the time, while even poor batters will manage to get a hit 20% of the time. The difference between heroes and failures lie within that narrow band of performance. Success in baseball, as in life, requires perserverance in spite of repeated failures. This results in the slow accumulation of small differences that differentiate players and teams from each other. This characteristic has invited comparison to both democracy and the human condition in general. George Will expressed this by saying:

   Baseball suits the character of this democratic nation. Democracy is government by persuasion. That means it requires patience. That means it involves a lot of compromise. Democracy is the slow politics of the half loaf. Baseball is the game of the long season where small incremental differences decide who wins and who loses particular games, series, seasons. In baseball, you know going to the ballpark that the chances are you may win, but you also may lose. There is no certainty, no given. You know when the season starts that the best team is going to get beaten a third of the time. The worst team is going to win a third of the time. The argument over 162 games is that middle third. So it's a game that you can't like if winning is everything, and democracy is that way, too."

This whole section is pov and is over stating baseball and imo should be removed (Gnevin 01:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

I agree. I support removal. Cheers, TommyBoy76 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBOy76

Misc. Questions

Some questions

Good evening,
Please forgive me for I know nothing about editing text in Wikipedia or asking a question at the proper place in this discussion page, and so on... plus, forgive me once again for I am french, so I may write not intelligible english ! But I swear, I'll do my best. I love baseball, and I love to think about the rules, to imagine some situations in order to extend my experience - quite unclear, I know. Anyway. Here's my question : "there is no upper limit to the number that may bat in rotation before three outs are recorded". Does that mean that when the whole team has played/hitted, you can start again from the first player ? Or the maximum limit is yet set to the nine ones ?

Nobody answered to me at this time, and yet I already have another question ! (Yes, actually I'm reading the full pages related to baseball, because if some friend may ask me anything about it and I couldn't answer, I'd rather die) : "The right fielder generally has the strongest arm of all the outfielders due to the need to make throws on runners attempting to take third base" I don't understand why especially the third base and not the other ones ?
Since this message is quite amateurish, please don't hesitate to delete it after you gave me the answer.
Thank you, good night.

You French dudes also have a hard language so forgive me if I am not speaking proper French, Lol. ;). In regards to the first question: The players, in their batting order, can bat until three outs have been made. As you have suggested, the whole team start again from the first player. The second question: Now that you point it out, I would say that that statement is POV. If it is not, I am curious myself. TommyBoy76 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

The right fielder is farthest, physically, from third base, and it is more likely that the right fielder will need to throw to third--such as to get a runner out who is attempting to score--than it is that the left fielder will need to throw to first. The left fielder is phsycally farthest from first base, but by the time a throw made it in from left, the runner would very likely already be safe on base, so the throw would not be attempted. However, the defensive advantage of having the right fielder throw out a runner at third is an important one (since that puts the runner one base away from scoring). Just so you know, there's no stupid questions at all, so don't worry about it. :) Wesmills 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, that's very kind. Alright for the detail, TommyBoy, even if I guess this situation doesn't happen very often (?). And come on, french is not that hard ! I mean, you're the ones who invented baseball, aren't you, now that's some hard stuff !
Ok, Wesmills, great explanations, I got it. And now that you mention it, I remember this is an event which occurs a lot, I think.
I'm gonna keep reading those pages and let you know if something gets me "doubtful" again (you can say that ?).

Here it is : "In baseball, a foul tip is a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the catcher's hands and is legally caught." Then why is this considered as a strike and not as some kind of fly out ? Because it is the catcher who caught it ? Because it is written in the official rules and that's the way it is ? I mean, in these circumstances, it seems quite similar to these foul balls which get high above the umpire's head but not far, these that the catcher always try to catch in case they don't fall among the public behind... I find this situation kind of odd.

It's because foul tips are not considered fly balls. My guess is that the original rule was a protection put in as a compromise to hitters. Strikeouts at first didn't exist and then took 4 strikes and then 3, but fouls weren't considered strikes until the dawn of the 20th century. I have a feeling that the foul tip rule was a compromise for letting foul balls become strikes. But you know, baseball sometimes has kept oddities in the rule that don't necessarily make logical sense. Look at the batter reaching 1st on a wild pitch. I mean. Why is it possible with no one on first but it isn't with a man at first (unless there are 2 outs)? --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There actually is a reason for this. The original rule was simply that the batter was not out on strike three unless the catcher held onto the ball. If the ball was not caught, it was considered to be in play, just as if it had been hit in fair territory. That meant that anything could happen on an uncaught third strike that could happen on a fair batted ball: the batter could try to reach first base, runners could advance, be thrown out on the bases, and so on. At some point, some clever catcher figured out that with a runner on first and less than two out, he could deliberately drop the third strike to put the ball in play, then pick it up and start a double play. This created an unfair situation for the team at bat, so the rule was changed to make the strikeout automatic (even if the catcher drops the third strike) in precisely those situations where a force double play would be in order: that is, when first base is occupied with less than two out. This removes the force on the runner and prevents the possibility of an unfair double play. If first base is open, there's no force at second, so the original rule still applies—the catcher has to hold the third strike for the strikeout to count, and if he doesn't, the ball is in play and the batter is free to run. Similarly, if there are already two out, no double play is possible; there would be no advantage to the catcher deliberately dropping the third strike, since if he holds it the batter is out and the inning is over. So the batter can run on a dropped third strike whenever the double play isn't in order (first base open or two out), but not when a double play is possible (first base occupied with less than two out). Dodiad 09:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok, thanx, Woohookitty, that sound fine to me.
Oh, by the way, while I decided to "reread" (to read one more time !) the "Batting" part, I found some guy who wrote "Go Cardies" or some odd stuffs like that, which I didn't get, but I guess that was vandalism, so I put the old text back. I don't know if I did good and if it was good that I do so, so tell me.

Hahaha, somebody get this French dude a cookie. By the way, Wesmills is correct: there is no such thing as a stupid question if you don't know the answer. Thanks for finding that vandalism. (Cardies? Boo! Go Cubbies!)TommyBoy76 02:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

A foul tip is indeed a strike and not an out only because of the special rule for it. The reasoning for this is that a foul tip looks like a strike, acts like a strike, and feels like a strike. To call the batter out for a ball caught in flight would be quite odd in the case of a foul tip. You will see a foul tip and think its a strike--because of this rule, you will be correct. Good question! --Locarno 21:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, TommyBoy, then you may help with something : I watched some old match yesterday (that's the best I can do, in France, since we got absolutely nothing about baseball), the Yankees vs the Marlins, and there is something I still don't understand quite well : the errors. In the score pannel, you got runs, hits, and then errors, right ? and there was just one error, for the Yankees, which I guess was some very bad catch Jeter had made. But that is still not quite clear in my mind : what is exactly an error ? Thanks, bye. (Oh, and what are cardies and cubbies, anyway ?)

An error is an error. In Jeter's case, it was obviously a playable/catchable ball. But since it was misplayed, it was thus ruled an error; a mistake. "Cardies" is a nickname for the baseball team St. Louis Cardinals. And "Cubbies" is a nickname for the Chicago Cubs. Cheers, :) TommyBoy76 13:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Hey, French dudes can provide a great service by letting us know where our articles aren't clear. I've started a lot of the articles in the "Baseball rules" category [4], so please let us know if something is confusing in these articles. Locarno 21:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, guys. Thanx for the info, TommyBoy. Gee, Locarno, to tell if you guys' articles are confusing ? How could I do more than just asking my amateurish questions since I'm not even an english talking guy ? I'm not the one to tell if these articles are clear or not, I'll let you know when I'll reborn as an american ! For now, let's just say I really appreciate the big work everyone did for this baseball page, I'm reading it everyday like crazy. Ok, just watched some D-Backs vs Rockies old match, and I've come to think to new questions, if you kind guys don't mind :
- Suppose all bases are loaded. Then the hitter got 4 balls. Does he gain a walk ? So there would be a run thanks to the third base runner ? How is this event solved ?

A walk with the bases loaded indeed forces in a run. Vslashg (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this is called "walking in a run". Very disheartening for the pitcher. Locarno 14:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

- I saw B.Kim, some korean pitcher in the Rockies ; the guy is "under-pitchin", sorry, don't know how to say it, I'm sure you've guessed. Is it legal, are there any rules about pitchin ways ?
- Man, I forgot my third question. I'll edit tomorrow, if I can recall. Thanks, bye !

Good question. Not in 'styles' of pitching, are there rules. You can throw submarine, side-arm, or over-arm. But the only thing I can really think of is a balk. Is there anything else, anyone? TommyBoy76 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

You're looking for pitching positions. Any style can be used--even blantant underhand! I've edited the Pitching and balk articles to include a link to pitching positions. Hey French dude (or should I say Guy), sign your name with four tildes ~~~~ so we know who you are!  :) Thanks. Locarno 14:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so this korean guy's submarine style is not that rare, alright. Thanks Tommyboy and Locarno. I didn't get it, why should you use "guy" ? Sorry for the name, I really know nothing about wikistuff. You mean that Hemux 22:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC) ? Wow, it works, that's magic. Now you can call me IP-TIME instead of french dude, what a relief ahah ! Ok, I put some weird nickname just to do as if. Well, now I found two other MLB old matches, so I'm gonna enjoy ! Thanks, bye.

Heh, "guy" is an American term for any man, whereas "Guy" (Guy LaFleur, Guy de Maupassant, etc.) is a common French name... By the way, "match" is never used to refer to a baseball contest--it is instead called a game. --Locarno 22:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

More Questions

Hi there. Ok Locarno, got the play on words, sorry about that, oh, and about the game too, I got it. Ah, today was the Randy Johnson's perfect game ; quite pleasant. Ok, now here are some new questions :
- When it is nineth inning time, why the winning team doesn't play its turn, after the last inning of the opposite team ? Is it just a matter of choice for them ? Is it up to them, if they got more runs, to stop it or to finish the game in order to gain more runs ? There is no rule about that ?

There is indeed a rule. When the home team is winning after 8.5 innings, the bottom of the ninth is not played because it is the last inning, and the losing team has no way to win--only the batting team can score.

Alright, but then does it always happen like that ? Does the rule prevent the home team playing the last half inning ? I mean, maybe the home team might perform some more runs in this last half inning, no ? Aren't runs that important ? Hemux 09:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The home team always bats in the bottom of the inning. The visiting team always bats at the top of the inning. So, in games where the home team is winning at the close of the top-half of the ninth inning, there is no need to play the bottom half of the ninth, since the only possible outcome of the game is that the home team will win. Having them play the bottom of the ninth could only increase their margin of victory, which is unsportsmanlike. Also, if the home team begins the bottom of the ninth behind in points, and then they make runs that put them in the lead, the home team is immediately declared the winner and the game ends. dpotter 14:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hemux- In general when the game is won it doesn't mater if it is by one run or ten runs, it's won. However in some adult amature leagues I umpire in, the playoffs are two or three game total points series. In this case all innings of the first games are played (with no extra innings for a tie) and the rule is in effect only for the last game. But this is not an official rule. --DV8 2XL 09:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

- I've got one last video, and then that will be over, I won't be able to watch any more games, for french interest on baseball is simply null right here - "oh, u mean these guys hitting some ball with a woodstick ?" ...ah, man, I'm really sad about that. Anyway, I wanted to know, do you know any comic, webcomic, or even manga dealing serisouly about baseball, so I might keep an everyday's link with this sport ? Even if it is a webcomic with jokes and comical situations, cause if I am able to understand baseball jokes that will mean I understand the rules too. Thanks, bye ! Hemux 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your best bet, if you have a good internet connection, is to subscribe to mlb.tv. Surely your 35-hour-per-week job with 6 weeks paid vacation earns you enough to dish out a few euros each month for the greatest sport on the planet! ;) Also, just visit baseball web sites--The Sporting News, sports.espn.go.com/mlb, mlb.com, etc. Too bad the Montreal Expos moved--they used to have french-language TV and radio. You also might be interested in Ken Burns's Baseball miniseries. It has French subtitles, available here: Ken Burns's Baseball. There are a number of comedic Baseball movies: Major League (film), The Bad News Bears, Mr. Baseball, Fever Pitch (2005 film), etc... Locarno 15:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Locarno. I've got a very good connection, right, but you're wrong, I fear I can't afford the subscription to mlb.tv since I haven't got any job, for I am a student. Plus I'm not really interested on sites about baseball : I'm interested on watching baseball games, yes, wondering about rules and situations too, and of course dreaming of myself, playing baseball - for french people don't get out in the nearest city's park to play baseball as lot of american do between friends. So sad, I tell you. I'm not really interested too on these kind of comical movies, I'm sorry but in my opinion they're often quite dumb. Don't you know any that are "serious comical" ? Or even serious. Or webcomics ?
I think after that we will erase all of the text about my questions, since it will be over - and it takes too much place for nothing really that useful !Hemux 16:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there are some good "serious" (dramatic) baseball movies, such as Field of Dreams and The Rookie (2002 film). Ken Burns' Baseball series, mentioned above, is about as serious as it gets. Don't know any web comics--I'm not too into web comics (except Penny Arcade! heh). Your internet search is as good as mine. I know there are some great baseball blogs. --Locarno 02:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok Locarno, thanks again ! Hey people, guess what, though I don't have anything left to watch about baseball, I've got some questions, and you know why... (Hemux)

But I think discussion pages are not to be used for opinions directed to subjects other than the article itself, if I am not mistaken. I think Hemux's talk page would be more appropriate. TommyBoy76 19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

I've moved it over there. Locarno 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits I just made

I reverted an attempt to put in the idea that a Welsh boy invented baseball. If you have sources, you may put it into the article, but otherwise it's either nonsense or pure speculation for our purposes. Don't belong here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

History Section

The first paragraph of the history section not only has very little to do with the history of the game, but also violates the NPOV policy. It should probably be an overview of the popularity trends of baseball. As it is, it seems like a rant against the alleged greater popularity of football.

I'll probably edit it in a few days if someone with better writing skills doesn't first.J Riddy 14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

FARC

I think it will be wise to resubmit this for peer review, or at least have someone dedicated go through it and weed out the bad parts, because systembic bias and neutrality is a problem. Length is an issue, but not the most pressing issue. This is clearly not FA standard, and I will nominate it for FARC if doesn't get corrected. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it has degraded badly. This is the biggest problem with wikipedia--an article gets good and then a bunch of well-meaning people change bits of it for the worse. Is there a standard approach for maintaining good articles while still allowing wikiness? I've got wikifatigue on this one. --Locarno 03:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are serious problems. Hell, there's the word "you" in there. There are uncited assertions all over the place, and lots of unencyclopedic tone. I don't think it's so much a matter of degraded quality as rising standards, though. Night Gyr 17:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it has gotten bad. I imagine (and hope) there are a great number of people watching this article. Perhaps we could put together a group effort to fix it? D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 02:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, there exists a large reference section, but nothing linking any of the references to facts in the article. Anyone have any ideas on how to rectify this? D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed Version 0.5 Nomination

This article is in severe need of copyediting, and may even qualify for FARCing, as mentioned above. There's several instances of unencyclopedic prose, as well as too many redlinks and external links in the main body of the text. There's also several unsourced statements to boot. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

BASEBALL IN EUROPE

There are no professional baseball teams im Germany and I have never heard of professional teams in any other European country. Nevertheless, I did discover a baseball league in Germany, but had to look it up on the internet. There is a northern league and a southern league containing 5 or 6 teams each, mostly from hick-towns nobody knows. Due to a total lack of public interest there is absolutely no news coverage thus making professional baseball in Germany impossible. As far as I can tell, this is the case in all of Europe. Reading the present wikipedia article on baseball one might come to think that the whole world in crazy about it. This is only the case in very few countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.161.176.18 (talk • contribs) .

"Reading the present wikipedia article on baseball one might come to think that the whole world in crazy about it" I don't think it's quite that bad. Though the opening paragraph saying it is popular in Latin America and East Asia is a bit vague, in some countries it is huge, in some very minor. It's a very regionalised thing.

History

What has happened to the history section? -Acjelen 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A user on 164.125.12.90 deleted it on June 12 amid some other vandalisms and it was overlooked. Restored now. -- JHunterJ 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Question for you guys :)

If the runner is heading for a base but one of the opposition catches the ball while covering the base that runner is running to, is that runner out as soon as he touches the base or does the player covering the base need to physically tag him? im british and dont understand. i see players keep their foot on a base when they catch the ball and assume that base is then tagged and so the runner will be automatically out when he touches it, but need clarification :thumbs up: *thanx*— ChocolateRoses ^talk

It depends whether the runner is "forced" to advance because there is another runner (or the batter) on the base directly behind him. For example, if a runner is on first base, and the batter hits the ball, then that runner must try to advance to second. In that case, a fielder would only have to touch the actual second-base bag to get him out. On the other hand, say there is only a runner on second, and nobody on first. In that situation, the runner has the option of trying to advance to third, and they must physically tag him out. If a fielder were to simply touch third base, this accomplishes nothing. Hope this helps. Dakern74 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hit by Pitch while attempting to hit a pitch

Hello! I have never submitted a question before so I hope I am doing this right. I have searched for an official answer to this question without success. While batting, if a batter swings at an inside pitch and subsequently the ball hits the knuckles of the batter and the ball is hit in fair play is the play dead and the batter awarded first base as a result of a hit by pitch or is the ball live as it was "hit" in fair play during an attempted swing? Thank you for your reply!

Part of rule 6.08 [5] states that in order to be awarded first base, the batter can't be trying to hit the ball. If he swings, the pitch counts whether it later hits the batter or not. If he swings and misses for strike three, even if it hits him after the fact, he's out. I saw that challenged in a minor-league game I think last season. If he makes contact, then the ball's in play. Of course, if it hits the bat first and then his knuckles, it's probably going to be called a foul tip (assuming he's still in the batter's box). Hope this helps. Dakern74 19:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite right. This would never be a foul tip. Also, any time a pitched ball hits a batter, the ball is dead--it can never be hit in play or a foul, etc. If the pitch first hits a player's hands (or any part of the body) while he is taking a full swing, it is a dead ball and a strike, even if the ball is hit. No runners may advance. If a pitch first hits the hands while the swing is a half-swing but "he didn't go", and the umpire judges that the batter didn't try to avoid it, then it is a dead ball and a ball (a pitch not in the strike zone). If he did try to avoid it, then it is a hit by pitch. I think these are clear in the articles I've linked. If not, edit them or let me know. If you're confused, just remember this one thing: The hands are NOT part of the bat--ever. --Locarno 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Batters foul balls off parts of themselves all the time. Usually it's their legs, but still. As long as it hits the bat first, it's foul. However, after looking up the definition of a "strike" in rule 2, I'll agree that it can't ever be put in play. The rule I referenced (6.08) is silent about that. Thanks for the clarification. Dakern74 14:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Very true--that's when it hits the bat first. Once the ball hits the bat, it is no longer a pitched ball. Sorry if I wasn't clear. If there's anywhere the articles are unclear, let me know and we can fix it. --Locarno 16:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this discussion over to Talk:Hit by pitch since it's more specific to that topic. Then maybe it can be removed from the overall "baseball" page to shorten it up a little. You'll find I also added some of these conclusions to the original hit by pitch article. Thanks for the help. Dakern74 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)