Talk:Baseball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Former featured article Baseball is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 12, 2004.
Flag
Portal
 Baseball is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

There appears to be a missing segment (marked [***] below) in the section "Team at Bat -- Batters and Runners", [[1]]:

A batter always drops his bat when running the bases— otherwise, the bat would slow him down and could give rise to a call of [***] fielder to catch it on its descent.

The missing part would logically include the potential penalty for carrying the bat, followed by a description of a fly ball/pop-up.

82.131.251.54 15:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Searched article history until I found a pre-deletion version of the article and corrected the current article of the above erroe.

Timpcrk87 05:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Baseball To-do:
edit 
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Baseball as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Esperanto language Wikipedia.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Everydaylife.
Archive

Archives
1 2


Contents

[edit] Bias and Racism in Baseball

Bottom line, America is a very racist country, all humans should be treated equally. With that being said, if one wants to quesion say Barry Bond's records, then the manipulation of who played in the MLB can also be questioned. Specifically the records of all whites before Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947. Therefore, the numbers of Gehrig, Cobb, Hornsby, Ruth, part of Ted Williams, etc.. every player that played before does not have relaible or viable numbers because the statistics of blacks who potentially were better, but did not have the opportunity to play, were not credited. Furthermore, as far as stats, Hank Aaron was the greatest, as far as how the game was played Willie Mays was the greatest but with a white majority the white player is still held in highest regard.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.11.76 (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Discussions aren't for ripping on America. If you want to talk about the article, then go ahead, but the only thing it says about Bonds is that he sparked the steroid controversy, which is an unbiased, neutral statement.

[edit] Clarification on innings completion

The article says an innings is over when three batsmen are out. Does this mean that they can bat more than once in an innings if less than three men are out by the time all the batters have had a turn? I think this needs to be made clearer in the article. Osomec 22:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It happens occasionally, less than once per game in MLB. (Note that, in Baseball, there are "batters" and "runners", generally not "batsmen"; "inning" is singular.) How does the article look now? Locarno 16:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I had always been told that the whole innings was over when a batsmen was caught, even if less than two were already out, but there is no mention of this in the article - is this information therefore incorrect?--Captdoc 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what you were told was incorrect. Three outs are always required to retire a side for the inning.—DCGeist 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it did seem a strange rule!--Captdoc 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent vandalism - protect?

Seems to me like this main article gets vandalized like every 4 to 6 hours, nearly always (of course) by anonymous addresses. The article is plenty long and detailed enough as it is, and the legitimate corrections/additions that are being made are pretty minor. Anyone else have an opinion about sticking a Template:Vprotected on it? That way, if someone wants to replace the entire page with the single line "baseball is gay" (such as happened twice yesterday), they'd at least have to ask first. The RC patrol has been great about reverting, but you can tell from the comments they're getting tired of it also. Thoughts? Dakern74 19:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. What about archiving this talk page again also?

I like the way to you talk, Mister. :-) TommyBoy76 01:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Page is now archived. --Woohookitty(meow) 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel like bringing up this topic again after watching the last 24 to 48 hours' worth of spam wars about card collecting, interspersed with other "helpful" edits involving a stinky anus and the fact that a "double" is what happens when two runners score at the same time. Anyone? -- dakern74 (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I Just repared the the page after the last attack where the page only had the words

           "I Love Baseball"

as the whole article. I replased using the last edit pre-ILOVE Attack. So it may need editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.233.49.69 (talk • contribs).

I just typed "baseball" in the search field, and the page with "I love baseball" appeared--not the restored page. There is more work to be done, I think.

[edit] Collecting Section: Should there be one?

Hey guys, there was a selection on baseball collecting that had been included and was recently removed, what are your thoughts. Should an external link section for that be included? how about a "see also" if that doesn't work... thoughts/ideas/comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolverinegod (talk • contribs) .

No. Links about collecting specific items aren't even relevant to a general article like this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory to websites related to the topic (WP:EL). Links should somehow contribute to the encyclopedic content, mere collections of external links should be avoided. Femto 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. I would agree that specific items, such as the t206 wagner, or a ball signed by the 27 yankess should not be linked to. However, collecting baseball cards and other related materials are very popular amongst fans of the game. An entire section of the article could even be dedicated to the hobby in general. I would again think that something should be included. Image Repositories, Checklists, and sites that allow one to further their knowledge of the hobby are as relevant as any stat site or film site IMHO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolverinegod (talk • contribs) .

There's already a link to the wikipedia article on baseball cards in the see also section. --SiobhanHansa 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's less a perspective than the currently accepted guidelines. We're here to create actual content, not to accumulate links. Feel free to start a section about collecting! I think it would be best to begin with taking the link to baseball card out of the seealso. Put it in the popularity section and write a paragraph around it to introduce the hobby (…or business?), then further expand from there. Split it summary style to its own article when there is enough content (though I predict it will be a commercial spam magnet). Until then, there will be enough time to decide which links are appropriate or not. Additions of links on several topics to image repositories, checklists, stat sites, film sites etc. should be coordinated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball in any case. (Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~). Femto 14:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Baseball

It is my thinking that the 'History of Baseball' section should/could have a short paragraph summarising its history instead of just a link? Also, the 'History of Baseball' link itself currently leads not to an article but a disambiguation page, which needs to be changed. Wwwhhh 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably couldn't hurt to have a short paragraph, but it would be tricky to put the whole history of the whole sport worldwide into a few sentences. In fact, I don't so much mind the disambiguation page, considering it has about a dozen different countries on it, and you could easily click on the one you're interested in. Not everyone is going to be looking only for the U.S. version, although that also has its own section/link further down (why aren't they together?). I'm also curious as to why perfect game is linked from that DAB page and no other "notable records" are. -- dakern74 (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kruk and Kuip

I think perhaps a section should be added for Giants broadcasters, notably Duane Kuiper and Mike Krukow. They are a huge part of the modern Giants experience and much beloved by all fans. When Barry Bonds retires, Kuip, Kruk, and John Miller will be the best known members of the Giants family. MonkBirdDuke 03:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This would belong under San Francisco Giants, not under the article about the worldwide sport as a whole. -- dakern74 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant to post that there, sorry, my mistake. MonkBirdDuke 19:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football

How can a baseball field be used as a football field too?

Paint different looking lines on it. You don't have to go to college to figure that out. MonkBirdDuke 03:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Go to Dolphin Stadium in Miami. Ponch's Disco 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Convertion

Most Newer Multi-Porpace stadiums have retractable seats to expand to the size of a NFL feild. For College football some may use the warning tracks as the end lines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.233.49.69 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Rosters

I think we should remove the list under this section. There is no rule dictating roster make-up and to try and create a list is subjective. Thoughts? --Tecmobowl 03:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a huge problem with leaving this since it does say "most" teams. However, I notice that nothing in this section specifies that it's MLB. I'm sure other leagues and other countries have different numbers of players and different deadlines and all that. Except now I'm afraid that if we make this MLB-specific, thirty more well-meaning editors will come along and make this article even looooooooooonnnnngggggger than it already doesn't need to be. It takes forever to load the whole thing, and frankly, I end up looking at it a lot since it gets vandalized every six hours. Any thoughts on streamlining any other sections at the same time? -- dakern74 (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I am confused. Your argument would support the idea of removing the list but you say it should stay. Since there is no distinct rule, and various leagues in various countries all have different tendencies, I would again think that supports removing the informaiton. This is also a problem if you look at the habbits of teams over the history of the game. In the US MLB for example, the role of Relief Pitcher has changed dramatically over the past few years. It was not uncommon for a starter to pitch a complete game during the early parth of the 20th century. More feedback would be appreciated. --Tecmobowl 06:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, I'm arguing with myself. I guess it's a way of saying that I'm not very fervent one way or the other. I think it should stay for right now, but definitely needs some more clarifying words like "nowadays" or "most" or "Major Leagues". I'm just scared of what will happen down the road. If that leads other people to start adding a bunch more sections on "rosters in Japanese baseball" and "rosters in my over-35 softball league at work", then I switch my vote. -- dakern74 (talkHTTP/1.1 302 Found Location: http://localhost:1025/32757/badcontent.html Content-Type: text/html Content-Length: 188 Connection: close <html><head><title>Page has moved found</title></head><body>The page has moved. Please <a href="http://localhost:1025/32757/badcontent.html">click here</a> for the new page.</body></html>) 07:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SProtect (again)

Anyone have objections if i put this page up for sprotect? -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 18:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I really wish somebody would. I've brought up this topic in the project page (WP:WPBB) several times in the last couple months, and nobody ever answers. Strong second. -- dakern74 (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Will hopefully stay this way until after the World Series. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steroids

Is there an article about steroids and baseball?

Funny how simple Wikipedia can be sometimes. See steroids in baseball. There is also 2006 Baseball steroids investigation which is a little more current-events related. -- dakern74 (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Americans

Currently the article includes the following: "Black Americans ... continue to form a significant contingent." This is either false or thoroughly misleading. Very few born-in-the-USA black men are in the majors these days. MLB itself has initiated a program to encourage more American boys to play baseball, pointedly intended to prevent further reduction of the number of black Americans in the pipeline to the majors. Saw a brief story about this on TV including some interview footage with a former major leaguer who is one of the people working on this project. Sorry but I don't have any more specifics. But just ask yourself, does your favorite major league team have even two black Americans on it? I'd guess, possibly not! Those of us who got to see the great black stars of the 50s and 60s, so many of whom are now in the hall of fame, regret this trend. Publius3 08:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pennant?

One paragraph asserts that "Baseball is fundamentally a team sport—even two or three Hall of Fame-caliber players are no guarantee of a pennant", but this article does not explain what a pennant is or assert its importance, and the link is unhelpful.

Quite right. Relevant section edited to eliminate terminology that may not be clear to the general reader.—DCGeist 11:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Good work, but I was thinking more along the lines of someone explaining it, either here in Baseball or on the pennant page, since I have often heard and wondered about the term.
I agree the linked explanation is not perfect, but how does it still leave you wondering? For everyone else, here's the relevant text:
pennant: In team sports, a commemorative flag displayed or flown by a league-winning team. The last few weeks of the regular American professional baseball season, for instance, are known as the "pennant race". This is probably a holdover from the time (pre-1969) when the league championships were determined by the team with the best record at the end of the season, and to a lesser extent when there were division races but no wild cards (1969-93).
Where's the remaining area of confusion?—DCGeist 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. If you look at the edit history of pennant, you'll see that that actually wasn't there when I made my original inquiry, and appeared - or rather, it seems, was restored - only a few hours before my last post. I hadn't seen it since shortly after you replied to me here. Though I'm not entirely sure what the significance of a "league" is, the description is, now, more or less adequate.

[edit] Protect Again?

Seems that the vandalism is out of control. Maybe this should be protected again.Superstooge 19:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Seconded. I'm happy to see that vandalisms are very quickly undone or reverted out and love the fact that so many dedicated editors are "on duty"... but the number of attacks per day seems ridiculous. I'm sure there are pages that are even worse, but is it not bad enough here to warrant protection? An Earthshine 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond image

I just created an SVG (Image:Baseball diamond.svg) image for the field and would like to solicit comments and feedback:

Any comments, suggestions, feedback, change requests, whatever? Image:Baseball field overview medium.png was my inspiration but this SVG was created from scratch. Cburnett 08:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The image, as displayed on my fairly cheap system, shows the distance 60 feet 6 inches between the center of the pitcher's plate and the center, more or less, of home plate. This is wrong. The rules require a distance 60 feet 6 inches as measured from the edge of the pitcher's plate nearest home plate, and the corner of home plate that is nearest the catcher. The two points displayed in this image are less than 60 feet 6 apart, and more importantly, neither of the two displayed points is referenced in the rule book. Publius3 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the black text on the dark green background - a bit hard to read, especially at low resolution. Otherwise, it looks good to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Any suggestions on what to do? I tried white test and it didn't look good either. I think the only solution is to lighten the green and keep black (or the converse of darkening the green and using white). Cburnett 05:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)s
Maybe a shade of yellow? I'm not real good with colors - I just know that it's difficult to read and I have a huge monitor. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
(A) I think that, given the variety of both out-of-the-box and personal color settings on computer monitors, there's no way to make this perfect for everyone. Black on green is traditional and appropriate--a slight lightening of the green sound fine. (B) Perhaps lower-case "line" in current "Grass Line"? Compare "Foul line."—DCGeist 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I increased the luminance of the grass by 15 points and changed "Grass Line" to "Grass line". Anything else? Cburnett 17:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Image shows the rarely referenced distance from the pitcher's mound to the outfield grass and lacks the essential distance from one base to another. Aside from that, looks nice.—DCGeist 03:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Doh, I missed the 90' on the original. I've reuploaded it with that added. Cburnett 05:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it looks great, but the fence distance; some ballparks have 400 feet plus. Maybe it shouldn't say "up to 400 feet". Just a suggestion. Superstooge 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
How about "Distance from home plate to the fence varies between 290' and 400' (sometimes more)"? Cburnett 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Where did those numbers come from? Is 290 really a minimum? The Polo Grounds were even less. Since this article is also about baseball in general, maybe those numbers should be removed altogether. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I got them from the PNG image the SVG is replacing. As to the source for it...I'm not sure. I think a rough range to the fence is in order but I haven't a clue what a good range to put down would be. Perhaps the min and max distances of all current MLB fields? Cburnett 19:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
That was the point of part of my last post - this isn't the Major League Baseball article, it's just the Baseball article. That includes little league and Venezuelan league(s) and Australian league(s). Since there really is no range that sufficiently covers all of baseball, I would just remove it. Maybe just a note saying the "distance widely varies" but including any specific numbers will just confuse matters. That's my two cents anyway. (Now that I think about it, little leagues, etc. don't even do 90' between bases, right?) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
That begs the question: do we need multiple diagrams? If it can't — simply — be done in one then I'd say yes. Cburnett 19:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
MLB is the standard, so I think that issue would be resolved by noting in the caption something like: "Dimensions given are per MLB regulations" or similar. As for outfield distances, I would have two lines: "Distance down foul lines varies between XXX' and XXX'" and "Distance to straightaway center field varies between XXX' and XXX'" filling in with--as you previously suggested--the min and max distances of current MLB fields (or the current MLB min and max regulations, which I believe are explicitly stated). In any case, the distinction between foul line distance and center field distance should, I think, be made clear.—DCGeist 19:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Give me the numbers and I'll happily change it. :) Cburnett 19:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
"MLB is the standard" - uh-oh, you're going to get some Venezuelan league afficionados crazy with statements like that! Besides, I'd venture a guess that there's more little league games going on in any given day than there are non-little league games. Anyway, adding a note about the picture using MLB numbers is a good idea. I'd still refrain from trying to add outfield wall ranges. Those are quite arbitrary and should be labelled as such. Even the distinction between foul line distances and centerfield distance is arbitrary, isn't it? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
How about just simply "100s of feet"? Cburnett 23:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, let's be as informative as we can. The outfield distances vary, but they're not "arbitrary"--they have a history and are regulated in the prominent realm of baseball the image details. (And they don't vary nearly as much as "100s of feet" implies.) I'll find you those min and max numbers.—DCGeist 00:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I find the image hard to read at a size typical for the article (400px). Perhaps the font could be larger?? How about lighter colors?? Oscar 22:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I finally got around to determining the minimum and maximum dimensions of existing MLB fields. We can say in the diagram "Distance down foul lines varies between 302' and 355'" and "Distance to straightaway center field varies between 390' and 435'" (the extreme marks, by the way, are held by Fenway Park [short foul line, short center], Wrigley Field [long foul line], and the Astros' Minute Maid Park [deep center]). I also noticed one crucial label missing from the diagram: Home plate.—DCGeist 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Missing "home plate"...that makes me sad. :)
Ok. Added "home plate" label; increased font size to 20pt arial; and got more specific on the distance to fence thing. I think the text is much more readable. Also, Dan, would you be willing to insert the distance to fence in the article and source it? Cburnett 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I also stripped the labels down and made two more images:

Full Simplified Clean

Enjoy however you please. Cburnett 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! Just need to change minimum foul line distance from 290' to 302' feet. The 290' is probably a reference to the right-field line at Cleveland's old League Park, which the Indians abandoned after 1946. Anyway, the right-field fence was even closer at the New York Giants' Polo Grounds: 258'. Sticking to current figures seems preferable.—DCGeist 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Doh! Fixed. Cburnett 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some others that the fence distance should not be MLB-centric--this diagram should cover typical high school/college/amateur/central American/Carribbean/Japanese/etc. fields as well. I would say "fences must be at least 250 feet from home plate, but typically are 300 to 360 feet down the lines and 350 to 430 feet to center field." We should add the MLB distances to the Baseball field article. --PSzalapski 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the rationale for these proposals: (a) "Fences must be at least 250 feet from home plate." That does happen to be the rule of the International Baseball Federation. But there is no universal authority that can declare a high school or amateur baseball field not "official" (or not a baseball field!) if the fences are 230 feet from home plate, whether it's in Podunk, Panama, or Pyongyang; (b) "[Fences] typically are 300 to 360 feet down the lines and 350 to 430 feet to center field." How did you determine these "typical" distances for the entire globe and at all levels of play?
I agree that using the MLB ranges (clearly identified) is not ideal, but as it provides an actual basis for hard figures that serve to inform the reader, it remains better than all the alternatives proposed to date. We could possibly replace it with the rule and guidelines of the IBF (clearly identified): "The distance from home base to the nearest fence, stand or other obstruction on fair territory shall be 250 feet or more. A distance of 320 feet or more along the foul lines, and 400 feet or more to center field is preferable." [2] Perhaps, to avoid wordiness, phrasing thus: "According to IBF rules, fences must be at least 250 feet from home plate. At least 320 feet down the lines and 400 or more to center field is considered 'preferable.'"—DCGeist 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think IBF rules are the standard either. I would guess the majority of leagues in the world play OBR, NCAA, or NFHS rules (all similar), but I don't really know. Any way, you are of course correct. I'd like to see a range of fence distances that cover 90% of the world's "serious" leagues. That seems impossible to quantify, so I just conjectured the distances. I thought it was better than providing MLB-centric distances, which, while being objective and verifiable, isn't the information we want to convey. --PSzalapski 13:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would suggest making the green color a "faded" green (i.e. closer to white) to make the text more readable. --PSzalapski 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro has improved a lot, still needs work

I love the fact that the description of baseball's actual play is now more clear. I don't think the huge paragraph on the composition of the Major Leagues needs to be in the introduction. It is too specific to be placed there. I am being bold and deleting/editing it. Please let me know if you have an objection. ParvatiBai 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice this before I reverted. Still, I think that content should appear somewhere. Move it if you wish, but deleting entirely seems to extreme. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being polite about this. To my mind, in an article about baseball which purports to treat the topic on a broad level, two entire paragraphs about the American professional league are not needed in the intro and give it an overly specific tone that will run off the casual/uninformed reader. I think one or two sentences, as I placed them, are appropriate. I will happily see the paragraphs moved farther into the article. ParvatiBai 18:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball in Australia

Has baseball's popularity in Australia really grown in recent years. Baseball's main competitor cricket dominates the national attention during the summer months. Baseball's popularity in Australia was at its greatest in the early nineties but as was the case with other American sports like basketball, the popularity took the form of a ephemeral fad. There is delapidated and long disused baseball stadium in the suburb of Auburn in Sydney, Australia built around this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imalegend (talk • contribs).

just to let you know cricket is considered australia's national sport. so i wouldn't compare it to that but may something else--Thugchildz

No baseball does not match cricket or any of the other prominents sports in Australia. The most popular summer sports are cricket, tennis and basketball which is also the most popular "American" sport. Cricket is only the most popular sport overall because the football codes are divided into four: Rugby Union, Rugby league, Aussie Rules Football and Football (soccer). Otherwise, the football codes as a whole overwhelm cricket in terms of popularity. Apart from tennis (maybe basketball in terms of number of people playing it, but definitely not in watching it), there is no other summer sport that competes with cricket. GizzaChat © 07:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could somebody clarify the hand signals?

The article currently does not specify whether the handsignals used are universal, or whether each team has their own secret code. I would also like some more text on what precise kind of hand signals are used, like for instance touching the nose, sweeping the rim of the baseball cap etc. This should of course be written into the article by someone who has the requisite backround to know. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 06:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I will clarify it in the article. The hand signals are most definitely not universal. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If the hand signals were universal there would be no point to using them. There's no common ones, either, the key for one team might be the belt, while the other might use the cap or the thigh, there is no point writing common ones because they are all different. --Borgardetalk 12:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] someone please clarify the meaning of "automatic home run" =

The following question is not answered in the article:

Does "automatic home run" mean the batter gets a home run without having to [*] actually run around the bases? [*unnecessarily, for someone like me who understands cricket and doesn't understand baseball much beyond "a variation of rounders" - in cricket if you hit a boundary you always get 4 or 6 runs w/o running, may even get 5 or even 7 or more with an overthrow] 59.93.247.165 03:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

By "automatic home run", I'm assuming you mean a home run hit out of the field of play. Yes, a batter must still run around the bases, as well as any players that were on base at the time. Usually they just jog a bit, though. :) Boznia 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a home run out of the field usually gives us a "victory lap" required by the rules, per the definition of run. --PSzalapski 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] inaccuracies

Lah, me: "Again, there is a technical difference; properly speaking, the outfield consists of all fair ground beyond the square of the infield and its bases. The area between the foul lines, including the foul lines (the foul lines are in fair territory), is fair territory, and the area outside the foul lines is foul territory." Says who? "Infield" and "outfield" are not defined in the rules. I say "Outfield" is all fair ground beyond the grass line, which is defined in the rules, as well as the foul ground nearby (ever heard of an outfield foul ball?). Infield is everything else on the playing field. I don't know about all of this, but I also am sure there is no way you can call the dirt between the direct baseline and the grass line the "outfield". --PSzalapski 15:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This part is much better now. --PSzalapski 13:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Season Dates

I was wondering when baseball season started/ended and decided to check wikipedia. Imagine my surprise when I find out that that information is not on the page. I don't even know what general months of the year constitute baseball season. Could someone please add this minor information in the appropriate place in the article? — Eric Herboso 05:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's year round. Major League Baseball runs from February for spring training to October for the World Series. But in the Carribean (and Arizona in the US) there are winter leagues. It's a warm weather sport. But it's virtually year round. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/s/Talk%7EBaseball_0ff4.html"