Talk:Baseball/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Introduction to Article

"The game is thought to have originated in England some time before 1755, as noted by William Bray, a lawyer from the period whose diary historians have recently authenticated[2][3][4][5]. The consensus of historians is that it evolved from earlier bat-and-ball games, such as cricket and rounders. Baseball was then brought to North America by British and Irish immigrants. This is contary to the popular belief that the game was invented in North America during the eighteenth century."

The game that is referred to in the last sentences is not baseball, but is known as rounders. Baseball, though derived from rounders, was indeed established in 1845 when Alexander Cartwright laid down the first official rules and created the first professional team. I believe this section should be removed, as it is against facts written in the National Baseball Hall of Fame, located in Cooperstown, NY, and clearly seems to be of a faulty source, especially since the word "contrary" is misspelled in the fourth sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.177.11 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this paragraph should be reinstated. It gives clear, accurate information, and is much better than anything presently in the article. Games change - no game now is the same as it was in, say 1845 - but cricket, tennis, golf, soccer etc. do evolve gradually along recognizable lines, and it seems that baseball evolved from a game played in Europe in the eighteenth century. To adduce a typo as a reason for removing a good paragraph is absrd (sic). Cooke (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a collection of games that were called "base ball". The game currently played as "British baseball" is actually more like a cross between cricket and rounders. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No Original research. Rounders is derived from Baseball as a visit to a British copyright library can show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.209.84 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Meaning what? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In Rounders one has to run around all the posts whereas in Baseball one can stay on a base until moved on. 17:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.209.84 (talk)

You're describing current rules. And what has that got to do with "a British copyright library"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

POV Content

Baseball's biggest market is the United States where it is the second most popular sport.[12]

The source cited for this information is an editorial on sports from a college newspaper. It's arguable that baseball is indeed the most popular sport in the United States, and I think this sentence should be removed from the article since the statement is based on an opinion piece. The statement is unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.92.241 (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

NASCAR is probably more popular than MLB. In any case, the statement is apparently based on no verifiable facts, so it doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseball is probably the most sports in the States. NASCAR is probably more popular than MLB? That's questionable. AdjustShift (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What is baseball?

I am very unknowledgeable about sports, but sometimes I try to look things up to be able to follow discussions, or, in this case to understand aspects of American films. But I must say that this article really presupposes knowledge of the game. I think it lacks a short introduction explaining the game to someone who really doesn't know how the game works (and believe me, there are such people in the world!). Is anyone up to the challenge? Peterwet (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you could explain what you don't understand about the first paragraph and the "Rules and gameplay" sections of the article, which are intended to be the type of introduction you mention. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bat-and-ball games can be kind of harder to describe than goal games, which are pretty obvious to explain at a high level without getting into any details. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to watch the sport. That's how you understand. AdjustShift (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I second what Peterwet said. I have no idea how Baseball is played, what it's rules are etc. It is very surprising that the rules aren't explained. 'Adjustshift' - maybe Wikipedia can add a section that states that people who do not know the rules should just "watch it on TV" and not consult an ENCYCLOPEDIA ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.25.71.114 (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that telling the readers to watch the sport is not helpful (maybe the reader doesn't have that possibility without going to another country or getting a satellite dish, maybe he simply doesn't have the time, or maybe he is even blind—a screen reader can read the article for him, but hardly watch a game for him), I don't see how you can say that the rules aren't explained. The "Rules and gameplay" section is quite clear, I think—and I have never in my life seen any baseball apart from small fragments in works of fiction. And if it's not extensive enough, there's always the link to Baseball rules. —JAO • T • C 11:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Peterwet. I just read the "Baseball" article to understand the movie "Battery" and after reading the description of the game, I understand as little as before. If you cannot explain how Baseball works, you might still be a good baseball player, but obviously you're not a very good encyclopedia writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.141.59.218 (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that "I don't understand the article, so please fix it" is a very general problem. It would be helpful to know what you don't understand, and why you don't understand it. Is there a similar game such as cricket that you are familiar with? If so, then try Comparison between cricket and baseball. You might also read the simple:Baseball article on the Simple English site, and see if that is any easier to understand. Baseball is a complicated sport, and it takes time and effort to learn. Being able to watch the game will help in the process. If you aren't able to watch games being played, then watching other baseball movies might help you to be more familiar with the terms and setting. Then go back and read the article, and you may understand more each time you read. Remember that this article is about baseball; it's not trying to teach you baseball any more than an article on Portuguese will teach you to speak Portugues. That said, the article needs to be as understandable as possible, but it can't explain everything in detail either. That's why we need more specifics about what and why you don't understand the article. And no, "all of it" won't be very helpful! You can start with the first paragraph, as it gives a brief overview of the game. - BillCJ (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit restrictions

Why can't I edit this article? AdjustShift —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdjustShift (talk • contribs) 05:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the article has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it. Users with new accounts cannot edit such pages for several days (usually about 4). You should be able to edit the article in a few days. Until then, feel free to post here if there is something you feel needs to be addressed before then, and I or another editor will try to help you. - BillCJ (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So can I edit this after four days? I don't have anything to address. AdjustShift (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Try an envelope. Meanwhile, what would you be editing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever I can! I like New York Mets. I'll also probably work on baseball players. I'm quite new - I want to see how "Wikipedia" works. AdjustShift (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Iran

Article says "Baseball on the professional, amateur, and youth levels is popular in North America (particularly in the United States), Central America, parts of South America and the Caribbean, and parts of East Asia and Southeast Asia."

Baseball is also gaining popularity in countries such as Iran. And because of the influence of the American culture, it is popular in many countries. Many people around the world watch baseball. AdjustShift (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Should have links to Major League Baseball scandals, et al

The scandals are intractably linked to the game, IMHO. I can't recall another sport that needed congressional hearings.

Anyway, there are already exisiting articles:

Major League Baseball scandals

2006_Baseball_steroids_investigation

Leemeng (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Game's roots discovered

Would a nominated editor like to add the following:

A diary recently found in Surrey, England indicates that baseball had its roots in the county long before it became popular in the US. The diary belonged to one William Bray, a solicitor who practiced throughout Surrey in the 18th century. One particular entry in the 1754-1755 section states that Mr Bray played the game on Easter Monday near Guildford, Surrey 1755. Julian Pooley the manager of the Surrey History Centre in Woking, Surrey an expert on William Bray verified the diary as genuine last year and has been helping Major League Baseball [the body which runs the sport in the United States] in developing an in-depth documentary called 'Baseball Discovered'.

This find is extremely significant as William Bray was the county historian.

[referenced from: Surrey Times page 3 September 20th 2008]

See also: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/baseball/2799671/Major-League-Baseball-told-your-sport-is-British-not-American.html Twobells (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling this a discovery of the game's roots is a stretch. It's one of the earlier mentions of it, but "base ball" was mentioned earlier than that, I think. Also, "base ball" as a term covered a number of bat-and-ball games. British baseball, for example, is less like what we think of as "baseball", and more like a cross-blend of cricket and rounders. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

little league

why not add a section on little league? This is where the players come from. Wikirator (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this article seems to have a top down slant to it. With the focus on Major League Baseball, and little information on younger players. Baseball is at its core a child's game, played by only a very few adults on a professional level, and this article should reflect that. I would love your help in making appropriate changes. Your partner in editing, Eaglebreath (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Change from "Baseball Around The World" to "Baseball & Related Sports Around The World"

Change from "Baseball Around The World" to "Baseball & Related Sports Around The World"

This section should have part A: the current baseball outside the USA section

B: Cricket, including three subcategories for 5-day teast cricket; 60-over one day cricket and 20/20 cricket

C: Finnish baseball / pesis / pesäpallo: a section on this unique sport

D: Softball, stickball & whiffle ball

& E: rounders

Each section should then link either to more information, and/or to external links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.114.70 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

While we appreciate your suggestion, this article is about baseball itself. The other sports you mentioned have their own articles, and those are the places to cover that info. I'm fairly certain the Cricket page covers all the variants of that game, including 60-over and 20/20, but not baseball! But it would be funny to watch the reaction of the cricket page editors if you suggested a section like this on that page, especially for baseball! What a row that would be! Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article, linked from this one, called Bat-and-ball games. That's a sufficient "umbrella" to these kinds of games, and more could be added to that article if they are verifiable. There's also an article that discusses, at great length, a Comparison between cricket and baseball, which it is fair to say are by far the most important of the various bat-and-ball sports. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any research into the origins of this sport taking into consideration the sport OINA practiced in Romaina in the 1300's?

From playing OINA as a child the similarities are striking.

Thanks,

--MR30022 (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there proof that baseball is the 2nd most popular sport in the united states? I would beleive that basketball has more registered players and more spectators at games in comparison to stadium size. I've heard that Soccer is also played more in the united states currently, than baseball. Is there any documentation that can prove any side of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.69.55 (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

By money spent, I have heard that golf and auto racing are also near the top of the list. (Money spent is a good criterion, as is participation or total number of fans or players; the fullness of small stadiums is not.) --Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Viewership is a good metric for popularity. 99.224.137.2 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Yeah -- I did misspell "contrary." The text, however, is mine.

The issue seems to be how much the game can change over time to be the same game. What was played in Bray's time was clearly called "Bass Ball." It certainly must have been quite different from the game today.

I'd argue for the citation to stand with a comment or two about "rounders." It is part of the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgeson (talk • contribs) 15:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on William Bray diary

The reference to William Bray's diary in the Introduction grants it an importance and weight it should not have in the overall article. I put forth the following:

First: Having the Bray reference in the Introduction degrades this article in a general sense, since it is inflammatory. The main point of the reference in the Introduction seems to call out that baseball is English (not American) - and to challenge all readers to re-evaluate their common beliefs. Is this really such an important point, and is not this better addressed in the (already well-written) "Origins" section? As others have pointed out, one can reasonably argue that we are not precisely sure what the rules of the "game" were that Bray said he played.

Second: The article begins with an excellent description of modern baseball (generally describing a subset of the rules), however, the sentence that introduces Bray's diary entry begins with "The game...", as if "The game" described in paragraph 1 is the same "game" described by Bray. However, Bray's entry contains no such similar description. We only have only a similarity in name at this point.

Third: The reference to Bray is misleading. As written, it implies that Mr. Bray's diary entry notes that the game originated in England some time before 1755 ("The game is thought to have originated in England some time before 1755, as noted by William Bray..."). In fact, the diary entry does no such thing. Instead, the diary entry recounts an evening of playing base ball. Historians have authenticated that the diary and diary entry are indeed authentic, but what this means for the history of baseball carries much less weight when we plainly state that Mr. Bray played a game call base ball, and not that Mr. Bray noted that the game of base ball originated in England around 1755. We must be clear and not let Mr. Bray "conclude" things for us that are not written in his diary.

I respectfully submit that the reference to Mr. Bray's diary be incorporated into the "Origins" section and given no more weight than general discussion of bat and ball games as evolutionary precursors to the modern (19th century onward) game understood as "baseball" today.

Brevatious (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

These are all excellent points. While the weight of evidence now strongly indicates that an early form of baseball was played in England, the phrasing of the lede was inaccurate and tendentious. Hopefully the edits I have made both there and in the Origins section address the major problems that existed.—DCGeist (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I very much like the edits you have made. Both the Introduction and the Origin are improved. The reader is still made aware of the origins of baseball in the Introduction, but the Bray diary entry does not overshadow the topic. I also note and appreciate the update to the "First Played" data, which now more accurately reflects facts as we know them and does not mislead. Well done, thank you. Brevatious (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is baseball unique for its statistics?

While baseball is clearly unusual among sports for its emphasis on statistics, I disagree with the statement 'Uniquely among sports, baseball lends itself to statistics' in this article. Cricket also lends itself to and places great emphasis on statistics, as evidenced by Cricket statistics. Given the many similarities between the two sports, I guess this isn't really surprising. I didn't want to edit such an important article anonymously but I hope that my opinion has consensus and that someone will change 'unique' to 'unusual' or something like that? 90.152.3.204 (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. The passage has been edited. Thank you.—DCGeist (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

DH

Fine, I'll take it up here. Leaving the article wrong just because it's been that way for a long time is absolute asinine reasoning. The DH is NOT mandatory and never has been so leaving the article to portray that it is, is simply irresponsible. I'm taking it off my watch list so unless someone with more sense contests you, you win. Bobby ^{I'm Here, Are You There?} 01:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

With that attitude, you won't be missed.—DCGeist (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

DH language in lead

There appears to be a question about how to phrase the sentence in the lead section concerning the use of the DH in the American League. Yes, de jure, the rules allow but do not require the DH be used in AL games. But, de facto, nearly 25,000 American League games have been played since the last time a manager chose to submit a lineup card without a DH (September 1976).

Editor Bobby 131313 wants the sentence to read: "In the American League, a tenth player may be used, a designated hitter, who bats for the pitcher." I believe the existing language—"In the American League, there is a tenth player, a designated hitter, who bats for the pitcher"—much better reflects what is expected of and will be experienced in any AL game, and is thus more appropriate for the lead section.—DCGeist (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there have been a number of games played since 1976 in which the DH position was lost at some point during the game, for example because the player who was hitting DH was left in to play defense. I think the may be language is better. Something along the lines of ...may be (and in practice, almost always is) used... might satisfy both sides. --Trovatore (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cubans are amateurs

Cubans are amateurs, fine. What does that have to do with Nippon Professional Baseball? Nothing I can see. There's no reason to have "cubans are amateurs" in paranthesis at the end of a sentance describing Japanese baseball. If that information is important, it should go with the rest of the information about baseball in Cuba. --Daimaoh March 29, 2009

You misunderstand the function of the reference to the status of Cuban players. We have stated earlier in the section that the Cuban "national team has been one of the world's strongest since international play began in the late 1930s". Right before the parenthetical aside, we state that the "Japanese major leagues...have long been considered the highest quality professional circuits outside of the United States." We thus parenthetically explain why the high-quality baseball played in Cuba is NOT "considered the highest quality professional" ball played outside of the U.S. Moving the content to where you would like it unfortunately is a poor choice: (a) it seems like an unnecessary non sequitur (why, at that point, would the reader be particularly concerned with Cuban players' status?) and (b) it disrupts the logical, chronological structure of the paragraph. The previous version has been restored.—DCGeist (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it implies that one of the cuban leagues (which one?) is stronger than NPB. There is no evidence for that, and in fact, the reference cited states that is not the case. It's very misleading. 202.86.126.16 (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's what it means, why not write that there? How about this:

"The high-quality baseball played in Cuba is not considered professional baseball, because since the Cuban Revolution all baseball players in Cuba are considered amateurs."

Even that goes too far to imply that some cuban league (again, which one?) is better than NPB, which there is no evidence for and is in fact refuted by sources cited in the article. Daimaoh (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The observation about the sourcing is on point. The edit is fine, with a little copyediting.—DCGeist (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow so discussions work better than just making random edits to the article without any indication to what they mean or why I thought they should be made? I guess I learned something, and it's better late than never.Daimaoh (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Replace text

"These teams (the farm teams) allow younger players to develop as they gain on-field experience against opponents with similar levels of skill".

Replace for:

"These teams allow low-profile players to develop as they gain on-field experience against opponents with similar levels of skill". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.120.79.164 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)