Talk:Baseball/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Basepath lengths for other leagues? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  recent edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Progress on To Do items

message: (Locarno 21:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unaddressed objections?

message: 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)
replies: text: I've renominated it, everyone go support it if you think it deserves it.  --Locarno 14:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ready for renomination on FAC? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Pitching 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ADMINS-PLEASE SAVE THIS PAGE! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Talk about how every stadium is unique 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Roster and Trading rule 

message: thumb|right|"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)
thread_title:  The Big Inning Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Perhaps 

message: 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)
thread_title:  International Rankings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Origins of baseball]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, that's a good call. I agree. -dmmaus 06:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Baseball's "Uniqueness"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  This article should be called 'Baseball in the USA' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Baseball vs. Football 

message: 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)
thread_title: Yogi Berra Quotes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Three things 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. I support removal. Cheers, TommyBoy76 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 , so please let us know if something is confusing in these articles.  Locarno 21:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Some questions

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  I've moved it over there.  Locarno 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Questions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits I just made 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  FARC  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Failed [[Wikipedia:Version 0.5|Version 0.5]] Nomination 

message: What has happened to the history section? -Acjelen 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
thread_title: Question for you guys :)

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Hit by Pitch while attempting to hit a pitch