Talk:List of baseball jargon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
Baseball Portal
List of baseball jargon is within the scope of 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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit ° history ° watch ° refresh)

This article (more broadly, the entire glossary) has gone through multiple reviews, survived early attempts at deletion and more recently benefited from the reversal of a deletion (after wikification). I believe it has improved considerably from earlier versions, including (a) becoming more complete, (b) alphabetization of the glossary, (c) general editing for style of the individual entries, (d) adding links to other articles, including main articles on many topics when they exist, and (e) adding notes where appropriate to sources or illustrations of the use of certain terms. In my opinion, it now merits being rated as mid-importance and at least B quality.

I might add that some of the "main" articles that are linked are themselves merely stubs and might better be brought under the aegis of this glossary than be expanded. They may have been created earlier precisely because there was no glossary to refer to; now that this glossary has expanded, the original main entries may be redundant in some (not by any means most) cases.--Mack2 18:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 23/2/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Buckner is not a term of jargon I've ever heard, and I've heard quite a bit. Some disaffected Red Sox fan or michevious Yankee or Met fan stuck that in there.

  • I agree. This term was snuck in by the same anon who also put in the term "wohlerize," which I removed earlier. I will remove Buckner now. Indrian 18:34, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] In the hole

I believe that the phrase (which was probably once spelled "in the hold"), like many baseball terms, comes from sailing, not cards. It continues the analogy with "on deck." Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 15:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to "The Dickson Baseball Dictionary", you are partially right.

  • In the hole, referring to something stashed away, such as the on-deck hitter, or, by inference, a hidden card in a card game, comes from "in the hold", which the writer asserts was pronounced "hole" by British seamen. That shortening of words stands to reason, since the words forecastle and boatswain are pronounced "foc-sl" and "bo-sun".
  • In the hole, in reference to a ball between infielders, clearly has nothing to do with a hold. It's a small gap. The term is also used in football. Between outfielders, it's "the gap".
  • In the hole, meaning facing an 0-2 count, means the batter is at a signficant disadvantage, as if he were standing in a hole. Wahkeenah 22:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Addition 142.106.243.36 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)HamishMc

Should "rib-eye" (extending "ribbie") and "steak" (extending "rib-eye") be added? I've heard these used for RBI many times, but I don't know if these are too local (I'm in Toronto).

[edit] "Steroid era"

At what point do we think "Steroid era" stops being media slang for the current controversy and becomes a genuine period in the game? Is it clear already, or should we wait for George Mitchell's investigation conclusions? 128.243.220.22 14:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error in "Slice" definition

Current definition: "slice foul - When a fly ball or line drive starts out over fair territory, then curves into foul territory due to aerodynamic force caused by spinning of the ball, imparted by the bat. A slice which curves to the right is not to be confused with a hook which curves to the left."

A slice only "curves to the right" when hit by a right-handed batter. If a left-handed batter hits a ball that curves to the right, it's a hook. Potrod 20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Potrod

  • You're right. So, instead of writing 2 paragraphs here, you could write 1 paragraph in the article, and fix it, ja? Wahkeenah 22:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... good idea. Done. Potrod 17:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Possible Addition:

Green Light: On a three and oh count, the batter may get the "green light" signal from the manager to swing instead of "take" if the batter chooses.

  • Added. On reflection, the definition above taken verbatim is probably better than mine. My only quibble would be that 3-0 is just one example where a batter might otherwise be expected to take a pitch. For example, if a pitcher has just (unintentionally) walked a batter on 4 pitches. Haysdb

[edit] Removed "on the interstate"

That term is specific to the Yankees' TV announcers. It has no meaning to anyone outside of New York. I also removed "infielder," which had no definition. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I restored this term since the previous writeup was mistaken. It has nothing to do with Michael Kay. Woodshed 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hit the ball on the screws

I gave a definition but wish I knew the origin of the term (not least of all because baseballs don't have screws). Can anyone help on this?Mack2 03:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slip pitch

I wanted to add this one but am not really sure if it has a single meaning. Is it the same as a quick pitch? Can anyone help on this? Mack2 03:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I've never heard this term. I don't think it's widely used enough to merit inclusion. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I hear it now and then but can't figure out from the context what it means. Try this little experiment: Google the phrase "slip pitch".Mack2 05:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stopper

Need a good definition of a stopper. Thanki you. Mack2 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • This may be an ambiguous term. I think of stopper as being synonymous with closer, but I've seen starting pitchers referred to as stoppers, as in a pitcher who can stop a losing streak. The later seems like an odd definition to me, but was used by a prominent publication in a list of "stopper of the year" nominees. Haysdb 08:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the stopper as someone who can reliably be counted on to end a losing streak is the one I'm most familiar with. Let's see if someone else comes up with an alternative, and if not then one of us can enter the definition in the main article.Mack2 13:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Financial, contract terminology needed

I'm not expert enough on these issues, but we need definitions for "revenue sharing," "Rule 5 draft," "contract year," "option year," "trading deadline," and other terms that a fan may hear on a broadcast or read in the sports pages. In general, terminology involving finances and the business of baseball. Thanks a lot.--Mack2 17:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Umpiring terminology needed

I would also invite folks to contribute items on umpiring -- the calls ("Play ball," "time out," "warning" (to pitcher), etc.), the crews, other terminology, e.g., "men in blue" (done).

[edit] Stadium terminology

I'm less sure about this one but I think there's some room for terms such as "paid attendance"; "under the dome"; "bleachers," "bleacher seats," and "bleacher bums"; "dugout," "artificial turf" (after all this started with baseball, didn't it? with Astroturf in the Astrodome in Houston?), "watering the basepaths," etc. I invite folks to add relevant terms in this category. Thank you.--Mack2 17:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Some of it is jargon, but I don't think "artificial turf" is, as it's a mainstream term that is self-defining. The point of the jargon is when it's not self-defining. Wahkeenah 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That's probably fair. But the term "astroturf" is often used as a generic word, and this definitely originated with the Houston Astros and the Astrodome. And if I were writing about jargon for football, I'd have "turftoe" in it.--Mack2 19:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology describing ballplayers

Some of this may already be there, but we need clear definitions of "rookie," "prospect,' "tools" and "toolsie" (said of a position player), "command" (said of a pitcher), "platoon" and "platoon player," etc. Thanks.--Mack2 17:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Need definition also of designated hitter.

Also, lineup card, roster, and expanded roster.

Regarding tools, Ive now added an entry based on an informative series of articles about scouting by Kevin Goldstein published on Baseball Prospectus, at http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4860.--Mack2 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strike Zone

Needs information about its "flexibility" or subjectivity. Also, "[[Questec]]" can be listed, it seems to me.

Jargon is kind of like slang. I don't know if Questec qualifies. I'm not going to mess with it, though. We'll see what others have to say. However, you might consider putting all this stuff in "strike zone"... and then whether it makes sense for it to be here, or in the page on baseball and/or baseball rules. Wahkeenah 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Jargon isn't only slang, it's the specialized language of people who work on or talk about a particular topic. In my field of research there's a lot of technical jargon that I would not call slang. That's true in engineering, science, literature studies, plumbing, highway construction, etc.
I was thinking that in the case of baseball jargon, it's the language that the players and the announcers and "baseball people" use that should be catalogued here. It's the jargon that "insiders" use but that outsiders want to understand so that they can figure out what's going on. So it's not just "dingers" and "peas" and "fireballers" sort of jargon, but it's also OPS and "command" and "tools," and "Rule 5" and some terminology from the business of baseball. Questec does get mentioned on tv sometimes, often in the context of explaining differences in umpires' strike zones. But I'm not trying to impose anything here. This is a public reference; I'm just suggesting what I think might be added and I'm encouraging some others to do this. I did add mention of QuesTec in the strike zone definition. I don't plan to add it as a separate entry.--Mack2 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Actions on the Field

We currently have no definitions of error (including "two-base error"), pop fly, pop-up, line drive, foul ball, advance the runner, run-and-hit, squibber. Asking for volunteers for those and other terms describing action on the field. Thank you.--Mack2 14:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scoring, Box Scores

The Wikipedia article on box score is just a place-holder and needs to be written from scratch. There is a nice description of the history of the box scores and some of the scorecard marks in Alan Schwarz's book. But it would be helpful to have a good article on the baseball box score on Wikipedia, as well as a definition and link here in the baseball jargon article.

The reader should also find an explanation here of such codewords as GIDP, LOB, etc. I've added these now, but there are other such terms that one finds in a "modern" box score. Thank you.--Mack2 17:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Then there's the original box scores, which included only "O" and "R", loosely derived from Cricket scoring, and standing for "number of times put out" vs. "number of runs scored". Wahkeenah 18:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't notice that. Thanks!--Mack2 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mistake near "Earned run average"?

The line in ERA about "to start the game as a pitcher" sounds like it's the definition for another term. Did a header line get deleted somewhere?

I looked at that fragment in response to your comment here and it appears to me that there may have been a definition of "emergency starter" that was either not completed or was deleted. I can't find such an entry anywhere in the "history" but went ahead and added one now. Thanks.--Mack2 13:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As Seen on TV

I have picked up some phrases from TV game announcers and ESPN that were not on this List, and then added definitions here. Yesterday, two announcers on FSN were confused about the terms Hat Trick, Golden Sombrero, and Olympic Rings, while wondering which award a particular player deserved in this game. Around the 8th inning, one of them had the answer: he had consulted Wikipedia and announced the definitions in the live broadcast.--Mack2 13:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Payoff Pitch

I was under the impression that a Payoff Pitch was ONLY one where the full-count pitch would result in either a run scoring or the inning ending (disregarding foul balls, of course). In other words, the payoff from the pitch goes to either the batter by scoring a run with a walk or to the pitcher as a strike for ending the inning. Input any and all?DocEss 19:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A list of baseball jargon, not a list of baseball antecdotes

This list is for baseball jargon — definitions and explanations of terms that are commonly used to describe baseball. Ideally, it should assist the non-baseball fan in their understanding of the game.

"Nice guys finish last" doesn't do that. This isn't a list of baseball quotes or interesting historical tidbits. Are we going to add Yogisms to the article as well? (I think "hit it where they ain't" needs to be excised as well.)

If you want to create a new article that collects baseball quotes or antecdotes, go for it. But this article is already overlong (and growing, with ever more detail) — I think it's best to keep it to slang that pertains to the game. Woodshed 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Take a look at how useless most lists of baseball terminology are (even the one on the Wiki dictionary). If it's a single word, such as the myriad terms for home run, no problem. But where it's a phrase or a term with different meanings, sometimes a technical one in baseball stats and sometimes one in common language, it's important to provide some context. Where a term can be shown in context, and where the origin can also be shown or suggested, it's valuable in understanding what the jargon means. If there's an anecdote or two, let's enjoy them. They're part of understanding both usage and meaning.Mack2 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I like all the contextual and usage information under actual baseball terms. That stuff is great. "Nice guys finish last" is not a technical baseball term. "Hit it where they ain't" is not a technical baseball term. This is a list of jargon, not antecdotes. Woodshed 13:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. But I also know that both of these are the types of phrases that you are going to hear on occasion from baseball analysts and fans. They are part of the special language of baseball. Where I have come up with quite a few terms is listening to baseball announcers, and while I usually know a term when I hear it (e.g., "he crossed him up"), sometimes I have to work to figure out what the heck they are saying ("plus player" is not just a way of saying a good player but is derived from scouting talk).Mack2 13:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with "crossed him up" or "plus player" -- they're terms, they're jargon. This isn't a list of "phrases you're going to hear on occasion". Plus, this article is already really, really long without adding unnecessary historicial trivia. Woodshed 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In respect to your concerns, I'll delete "nice guys finish last," but I think 'hit em where they ain't" is integrated in a different way (also, I didn't put the term in this List, unlike the nice guys phrase). You've made a number of helpful edits.Mack2 14:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Here's what the now-deleted entry had said:
=====nice guys finish last=====
As manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1946, Leo Durocher sized up the crosstown rival New York Giants like this: "Take a look at them. They're all nice guys, but they'll finish last. Nice guys — finish last." (This phrase comes from the same aggressive manager to whom the phrase "stick it in his ear" is attributed.) Two years later, Durocher shocked the baseball world by switching sides and taking over as manager of the Giants, a team he led to a National League championship in 1951 and 1954, as well as to a World Series championship in 1954.
Some people, even Durocher, later said that he didn't mean the phrase in the way it had been interpreted; just that whether players were pleasant folks who got along well with one another had nothing to do with how many games they would win. But another reporter who heard the same conversation confirmed the saying, except that Durocher said "Nice guys finish eighth." At the time there were just eight teams in the National League.[1]

[edit] AAAA Player

Somebody rendered AAAA player as "Quadruple A" rather than as "4-A" and I reverted it because I trust Baseball Reference on this usage.Mack2 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/AAAA_player
They write the following:
"A AAAA player, or four A player, never quadruple A, is a player who is an outstanding player at the AAA level but always has trouble succeeding at the major league level, either because of a lack of one of the five major tools or bad luck.
Many followers of sabermetrics question the idea that there are players who can dominate the high minors but fail in MLB. They think that teams tend to give up on such players too easily, leaving a population of potentially valuable players languishing in the minors. Bill James described such players as Ken Phelps All-Stars after the prototypical Ken Phelps, a AAAA player who finally made good when given a chance a number of years after he had first dominated competition at the AAA level."
Isn't the BR Bullpen a Wiki? There's nothing official about it. The first page of results on a Google search for "quadruple a" and "baseball" gets hits from the SF Chronicle, Baseball Prospectus, Scout.com and AOL Sports. I agree it's not as common as "four-a" or something, but it's certainly a term that deserves a mention. Woodshed 09:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snowcone Catch

I was sort of surprised of the absence of this term - A ball caught with some of the ball sticking out the top of the basket/webbing of the glove.

  • Done. Wahkeenah 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloated and against policy

I have watched this article over the last several months as it has degenerated from an encyclopedic list to an overly long mishmash. I appreciate Mack2's enthusiasm for baseball, but this has gotten ridiculous. The article is now 231 KB long, which I think is something along the lines of seven times as long as the recommended article length. It is also almost completely devoid of encyclopedic merit, being merely a list of definitions, which is specifically prohibited by WP:NOT. Now the concept of the article is not bad. Certainly some common terms in baseball should be listed and explained, with information on origins, famouns occurances, etc., but that is not what this article is anymore. Someone needs to hack away most of what is here and flesh out the rest into encyclopedic form. Indrian 17:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, the wikipedia site is running out of room on its TRS-80. Wahkeenah 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you want to add something constructive to this dialogue or just act like an idiot? I could care less which you choose, but the one lets you help wikipedia while the other will just make you look foolish. If you disagree with my diagnosis and would like to give me a reason why this article does not violate policy, I am all ears. Indrian 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Your initial comments made you come across as a nanny, a busybody, so a sarcastic comment seemed in order. Your response affirms my original decision. Before you continue lecturing others about wikipedia policy, you need to go away and read the one about "civility". Wahkeenah 23:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • See below for an example of intelligent and insightful debate on this issue. Feel free to join it if you want to start being constructive. Also, I would recommend developing a thicker skin when dealing with those who have a different opinion than you. Indrian 23:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I was just being funny, and you responded with personal insults. It is you that needs to develop a thicker skin. Meanwhile, don't come back until you've read the "civility" policy. Wahkeenah 23:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Some people do find rudeness funny. I admit we do not know each other very well and that may not have been your intent, but that is certainly how it came across. Be that as it may, I have offered every opportunity to start over with civilized conversation on this matter, and so far those invitations have been rebuffed. Quoting a civility policy that you violated first (from my perspective) does not really help when you have already decided to draw the battle lines and disdain serious debate. I am quite genuine in my offer to have a discussion bereft of these unhelpful exchanges; it is up to you to decide whether you can bring yourself away from your "jokes" and retorts to engage in it. Indrian 02:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Here's the deal: This item has already been debated once, maybe twice. I've seen elsewhere, where someone just doesn't like an article for some reason, and wants to have it deleted. You should devote your energies in a positive way, to writing about stuff, rather than targeting stuff others have written which might be useful to others, even though you don't find it useful yourself. Wahkeenah 03:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
                • If I wanted to advocate deletion I would start an AfD, not put up a cleanup tag. I feel the article has value. The problem is length, easily fixable even if it just means making subarticles, and style, a list of definitions that violate policy. I am sick and tired of people (this is not targeted at you specifically) who automatically assume anyone who wants something deleted or modified has the attitude of "I don't like this so it should go away." I am here trying to make a truly great encyclopedia, as are you. We have different opinions on what that entails, and we are probably never going to convince each other the other person is right, which is why wikipedia is governed by consensus. I fully support a system of consensus, only wish that it had some stricter guidelines underlying it (though that need not concern us in this discussion). To dismiss those who have a different opinion than oneself is to ignore the very idea of consensus and compromise and rises to an unacceptable level of hubris. Keeping the encyclopedia to a high standard of content, organization, and writing is making it better, and patrolling articles to make sure they are helping meet this goal, and deletting those that are not, is adding value to the project. I am not targeting an article I do not like; heck, I am a huge baseball fan. I will end my rant there and remind you that it is not targeted at you specifically and not meant as an attack.


As to the matter at hand, the article clearly violates policy as it stands. I will not quote WP:NOT here, but I urge you to read what it says about dictionary entries if you have not already. Most of the content should be transferred to wiktionary, which would involve no loss of content. Then the article should be written in an encyclopedic manner in which select terms of particular importance and history are given a more thorough treatment either on one page or several. I have not evaluated every term on the page, and it may be that they can all be expanded in this way, which is fine. I have posted here rather than undertaking this myself, because I did not want to cause an edit war or any confusion about my objectives for this page, but the current model does violate wikipedia's policies. I hope you can at least acknowledge that, because I believe that point is relatively straightforward. Where we go from here to help it conform is what my concern is, and I was hoping for some positive feedback on how to proceed. I know that was a long post, but I really want to make sure you understand where I am coming from here and that deletion has never been my goal. Indrian 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a different kind of entry from most. I think the issue of relevance has been debated before and it was decided at that time to keep the article -- despite the policy to which you refer. While that issue can be reopened, what I have tried to do is to add more actual content so that the article has become much more than just a list of words, synonyms, and the like. If you look at other lists of baseball terminology they are almost worthless because the definitions are inadequate and usually the origins (when that is relevant) and almost always the contexts within which terms are used are totally missing. A substantial number of the terms and phrases that have been introduced recently help the readers understand the language of baseball. Much of the newer material isn't found in any other glossary of baseball terminology. There are more citations in this article than in many Wikipedia articles that I have seen -- the lack of appropriate (or even any) citations is, IMHO, one of WP's greatest weaknesses. Another, IMO, is the tendency, which you have picked up also, to confound "encyclopedic" with exhaustive. And a third is the incredible density of some articles, with every other word linked to something else -- real distractions! But those articles aren't bound by an alphabetic organizatinal scheme, as this one almost must be. And completeness (never possible in any case) is more relevant to this type of list than to the typical article in WP.--Mack2 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Many of your statements make sense, but they do not get at the core problem of the article, which is that, when you get down to it, it is a list of definitions. The issue with the article is not one of relevance, but of form. Something needs to be done to turn this into an encyclopedic study of the terms rather than a list of definitions, which is a clear violation of policy. Most of what is here now belongs on wikitionary and should probably be moved there. As you have the greatest stake in this article in a way because of all your hard work, I would certainly like to leave the initiative to you to make this encyclopedic. If you do not want to do so, I may take a stab at it myself. Note that I am not advocating either deletion of the article or the loss of the information therein, I am merely referring to a combination of reorganization and transwikification to bring the article into conformity with established wikipedia policy. Indrian 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • To be frank, I am not sure what you or most other users on WP mean by "encyclopedic." It ought to be discussed whether there is only one best form for articles. Further, in this case, if somebody wanted to write an essay on the language of baseball, that would be fine (I guess) but it would not be of wide interest or utility unless it were accompanied by a list of some kind. And the organizing principle of such a list would be the alphabet, I think, unless there is a true sports Roget around here. The essay might end up being like one of those assignments in spelling that my daughter used to have in school: learn how to spell all the words on this list and use all of them in an essay about X (baseball, or love, or whatever).--Mack2 22:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:NOT clearly states that dictionary definitions and lists of such definitions do not belong on wikipedia. That is not to say they do not belong in the project, but just that wikitionary is the place for them. Essay form is what is appropriate here, the definitions should go there. This is a bright line rule of policy and not a subjective opinion of mine. Indrian 22:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
          • If you want an excellent example of a useless list, look at the Wiktionary's list of baseball terms. It's not a good starting point for anything. An essay on baseball terminology would be fine if somebody (not I) were to take it on, but under the standard (now more relaxed) length constraint there would be no place for many people to learn about many of the subjects that are treated in brief in the current list. Again, the issue of the relevance of this list was debated before and the decision was that it was ok to proceed (SEE THE NOTE AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE). But defining what "encyclopedic" means by pointing to a few things it is not doesn't help very much; and I question whether being "encyclopedic" requires that everything be in essay form when for some subjects a different approach may be better.
  • So, why can't we make this into a glossary? That seems OK according to WP:NOT 1.2.2. Or maybe we could get 1.2.3 modified?
Is there still interest in doing this? Looking at some of the other glossaries (darts and curling?), they appear to be (much smaller!) lists of sport-specific terms that might otherwise not be easily figured out. I would suggest leaving only those terms that have baseball-specific double meanings, and that don't have their own articles already. "Can of corn", "paint the corner", "insurance run", things like this. Things that are simple definitions or statistics (a balk, a third of an inning, outfielder) probably don't belong in a "jargon" list, and there is already a "baseball terminology" category where these are linked. I'd be willing to give the cleanup a shot (WP:ASG!) if it's wanted. I must say, even some of the ones that would otherwise be keep-able, seem a little odd and obscure to me personally (a "Lawrence Welk" double play??). -- dakern74 (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't favor that kind of "cleanup." One thing that this List does is try to link to any main technical article on a given subject (e.g., in baseball statistics) if there is one. But there is value in having a list or glossary that focuses on the colloquial and that is reasonably comprehensive. It is my understanding that this is not supposed to be a list of all baseball terminology, in particular not the rules of the game, and so on; but it has to have enough of that to indicate how the colloquial or informal or insider language of the game may differ from that terminology. For example, you can look up types of pitches elsewhere in Wikipedia, and it's a fine article as far as it goes, but it doesn't have the colloquial language for describing pitches -- what you may hear from players, coaches, the media, and fans. But you can't just cut out anything that happens to have a separate article about it already, because while that's a useful link, it shouldn't disqualify a term from this glossary of jargon.—--Mack2 17:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course that just begs the question as to why the colloquial terms are not covered on the pages about the pitches? It seems to me that a series of articles linked by a common category would result in all of this information getting in in a much more efficient manner that does not violate Wikipedia policy the way this page currently does. Indrian 20:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be missing one major point again: a series of articles is not the same as an alphabetical list or glossary, and would be much less useful for those who want to "look up" something they have read or heard. Wikipedia does endorse glossaries. Should all of them be turned into a series of essays? How come there are so many such glossaries on Wikipedia, all organized alphabetically? Think about it. Your other point, that the other articles should discuss colloquial jargon is beside the point. The fact is, very few of those articles do this. And a further fact is that most of the terms in this List wouldn't be covered in any article, because the terms stand on their own and come out of the game as it is played, watched, and commented on -- not the formal rules of the game. Those articles aren't concerned with colloquial language, but rather (in most cases) with either rules and regulations, statistical definitions, equipment and playing fields, and the like. We shouldn't expect them to be glossaries. The language used by baseball announcers, players, and the like is off-topic. That is why having a glossary of colloquialisms, organized in an easily accessed list, is helpful.—--Mack2 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed it shouldn't be only colloquialisms. But to say "most of the terms in the list wouldn't be covered in any article"? Dozens and dozens of these terms have links to their own pages, and dozens more have only a one-line "see [[article]]" as the definition. To me, that means that we've got unnecessary duplicate information floating around. If someone doesn't know what an outfielder is, odds are they would look up Outfielder instead of coming to this list. It's a nice repository, but it's gotten way too long. The category (Baseball terminology) should be prominently linked right at the top of the article, but I think this, in keeping with "jargon", should be for terms that are "out there" and in use, but not detailed enough to merit their own article. Also a lot of the scorekeeping terms are covered in the article baseball scorekeeping, which I've also been trying to get cleaned up. I can't believe every single possible double play combination (463, 643, 163, 543) needs to have a separate entry here. For whatever it's worth, I only found this page because there is another list English language idioms derived from baseball, and some of my watchlist pages had their links changed not long ago. Sorry to start this fight again. I really just wanted to resolve the "cleanup" tag. -- dakern74 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on the endless list of scorekeeping combinations. The original 0-9, and a couple of the others with numbers (e.g., 55 feet), plus perhaps a couple of examples of a combination would have been enough. (I didn't add all these combinations, and they can be reduced substantially.) Your other points I agree with only in part. The way I read this kind of thing wer're not starting out with a term such as, say, home run, and then looking for a list of synonyms. Rather we (the typical reader) hears a term or phrase (say, "dinger" or "jack") and looks that term up, and the most practical way to find a term like that would be in an alphabetical glossary. There may be a way to reduce the space consumed by some of the one-worders. But I wouldn't conclude as you do that the fact that there are cross-references to other items means that the original is redundant; rather the cross-references are done to reduce repetition in the text. There are a lot of terms and phrases in this glossary because baseball is our national pasttime. —--Mack2 04:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dinger and jack are good examples and would be the type of things I'd like to keep. But why does the original "home run" have its own entry? Can't the "dinger" line link to the [[home run]] article instead of to the "H" section of this list? Same with like ahead/behind/even/full count. The count has its own article. Why not just link there instead of having another separate explanation on this page? I can understand wanting to have an all-in-one single (bookmark-able?) place where anybody could go to look up any word they might hear while watching a game, but that doesn't seem to be the purpose of any Wikipedia page, much less one entitled "jargon". -- dakern74 (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. I went back to the left margin b/c I got tired of counting colons.  :)

It seems to me that those are both valid comments. This list probably doesn't need "home run." It may not need a separate listing for "ahead in the count" as long as there is a listing of "count" and the explanation of what "ahead in the count" and "even count" and "behind in the count" means under that heading. In fact, I made the initial entry for count, including the mention of ahead, behind, and even. Then "ahead in the count" arrived (I may have put it there) with a link to the count article. But somebody came along and repeated the detailed definition all over again -- that that was redundant. This kind of repetition can/should be edited out and if done judiciously (i.e., by making sure the information is already there somewhere else in a form that's easy to find) it would help. When I have some time I may try some of that, just like cutting out some of those 6-4-3 types of entry can be consolidated (as discussed above). (Later: I did a bit of editing along this line after writing the previous sentence. I'll do more when I can.) I refer to the word "judiciously," because there are some cases when someone might eliminate a term for which the information given here helps in a way that a standard definition usually does not. For example, the glossary points out that the term "infielder" has to include the pitcher and catcher for purposes of implementing the infield fly rule.—--Mack2 08:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platinum Sombrero

I edited the "Platinum Sombrero" entry to reflect that it was coined by Blue Jays broadcaster Rod Black. I heard the term for the first time when he said it on a Jays telecast this year to describe a player who had struck out five times in a game. If I'm wrong about this and someone else coined the term, please feel free to correct it. Gujuguy 14:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard this many times for many years. No idea who coined it originally, but I doubt it was this guy. It's so common that it has its own separate article (see golden sombrero). I'm going to remove it until it's verified one way or another. -- dakern74 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Wictionary?

  • Oppose. See Category talk:Glossaries. Rfrisbietalk 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Wictionary translation appears to have been done mechanically without fixing any of the links, notes, or references, thereby substantially reducing the usefulness of the list. I also think it's not a good idea to turn this into a "dictionary." It's a glossary and does more than just give definitions of words and phrases.--Mack2 01:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rally Cap

I edited the definition of Rally Cap to reflect its more accurate derivation from the Shea Stadium fans in 1985 rather than the incorrect (but widely cited) notion of Mets players spontaneously arriving at the idea during the 1986 World Series.

I have pictures of friends at Shea taken during 1985 wearing rally caps, and at least one journal entry (http://faithandfear.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/21/2146205.html) supports the assertion.

[edit] Alphabetization of the List

I think it's handy to have it alphabetized, but that effort was incomplete, as often happens when somebody parachutes into an article, makes a reformatting change, and then scoots off into the woods. It's happened a number of times with this list.

Specifically, once a user clicked on a specific category (say the letter L) there was no efficient way to get back to the master list and its alphabetical categories. I've added a "RETURN TO MASTER LIST" category to each alphabetical category. I may not have done this in the most efficient way; if so, somebody more knowledgable about formatting is welcome to fix it.

Another problem is that all of the internal links to other items in the List were broken (hundreds of them). Now each such internal link has to be reset to one of the alphabetical articles, e.g., List of baseball jargon (D), not to the overall List of baseball jargon. I've begun that process. In doing this, I've also discovered a fair number of orphans -- links to topics/words that were missing before (e.g., emery ball), and I've tried to repair those as I go.

A third problem is that the alphabetizer forgot to notice that there were several footnotes (linked references) in the original article. I've added e "References" category to each of the alphabetized lists that had such footnotes, so that readers can find the sources cited.--Mack2 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The pages also lacked a Category classification, which I've now corrected.35.10.69.132 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)

Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.

Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 07:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overturning of deletion, 26 June 2007

This article and the related items in the glossary were deleted on 18 June 2007, which led to a discussion and a decision to overturn the deletion. The glossary was restored on 26 June 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_18#.5B.5B:List_of_baseball_jargon.5D.5D I assume that the discussion has been archived for future reference.--Mack2 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should some of the terms be deleted?

It seems to me that a lot of the entries in this entry aren't really baseball terms, but rather ordinary English idioms that are used when talking about baseball. An example is would be one of the definitions for "shot" that reads:

A good chance, within reach, as in "The Red Sox have a shot at taking over 1st place."

This sense of the word "shot" is ordinary English usage and does not appear to orginate in baseball. There are several others throughout this article, i.e., seasoning, seal, etc. Should they be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonmonaghan (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the second definition of shot is not a baseball term. However, the main entry on "shot" as homerun does belong in the this list. Accordingly, I deleted that second definition.--Mack2 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)