This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baseball field article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SwanV98.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Although there is as yet no information on the black part of home. Tahrlis 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_%28disambiguation%29 "diamond" refers only to the infield. This causes some confusion. User:203.205.193.51 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
someone should add a popular cuture ref to the bases >--> make out, hold hands ...
Where is it? I see second, third, and home, but no first. megarockman 14:44, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
"Players who are left-handed are preferable for first base because: first, it is easier for a left-handed fielder to catch a pick-off throw from the pitcher and tag the baserunner; and, second, his left foot (which he uses to maintain contact with first base after receiving a throw from another fielder) is closer to first base than his right foot." As a baseball fan with too little knowledge—and a left-handed person—I'm slightly puzzled by this.
True, if I'm a left-handed first-baseman my gloved right hand is extended farther into fair territory than a right-hander's would be. But the "second" part of the sentence is baffling. What it says would be true of any first-basement not perversely facing into the outfield. Does the sentence assume that someone left-handed is also left-footed? That is certainly not true. (Village Explainer (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC))Reply
The appearance of the foul pole section between third base and home seems a bit odd. And as someone pointed out, a separate section for first base is conspicuously absent.
I would suggest moving the foul pole section after home plate, adding a first base section, and a little bit more base-specific information to their respective sections. I'll happily implement these changes if others agree on these points.
Currently theis section states that "Fenway Parks' Green Monster is the tallest of these walls at 37ft. Most of the walls are padded after a Major League player seriously hurt himself in the 1975 World Series when he crashed into the wall." It makes it sound as if Fred Lynn (that's the player referred to) crashed into the Green Monster back in 1975; Lynn hurt himself crashing into the center field wall, not the left-field monster. 141.154.209.175 13:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Should some of the article on Batter's eye's be incorporated here? Kinston eagle (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
"not due to a clerical or surveying error as popular myth has it, but purposely"...please provide a citation that this is a myth. Kingturtle (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
The statement "Most of the walls are padded after a Major League player (Fred Lynn of the Boston Red Sox) seriously hurt himself in the 1975 World Series when he crashed into the wall" is misleading for two reasons. One, walls were being padded well before Lynn's incident. Two, the wall was already padded when he hit it, it just was insufficiently padded. His injury prompted fixing that problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Is it really necessary to have two pictures of Fenway? and both of the Green Monster (a structure not at all common to most baseball fields)? Also are there any stats to back up claims of average MLB distances to the outfield wall? Notice the references re just commercial sites.(Jschager (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC))Reply
In the Home plate section this article states
In the absence of any citation, I am removing this. Justus R (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I believe that the 'on deck circles' in the diagram of the main article, are in fact called 'fungo circles' and that the 'on deck area' is more out of the way of the action, i.e. not so close to the batter/cather/umprire. Some parks have fungo circles (very near home plate as in the main article diagram) and some parks do not have them. A fungo circle is where a pair of coaches hit balls out to the fielders during practice.
If you type in 'fungo' at the main Wikipedia search box you will find:
Fungo bat: A fungo bat is specially designed bat used by baseball and softball coaches for practice purposes. The bat is designed to hit not thrown or pitched balls, but rather balls tossed up in the air. Typical fungo bats are 35–37 inches long and weigh 17–22 ounces. Coaches hit many balls during fielding practice, and the weight and length allow the coach to hit balls repeatedly with high accuracy. The small diameter also allows coaches to easily hit pop-ups to catchers and infielders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calixte (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Edited because the statement about Rogers Centre is MLB-specific, while the article is about baseball fields in general. As a counter-example to the version stating "only" Rogers Centre mainaned the configuration, I direct you to the home of Los Gigantes de Carolina, Estadio Roberto Clemente Walker, in Carolina, Puerto Rico: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Estadio+Roberto+Clemente+Walker/@18.3768323,-65.9492013,55m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8c0360d3641f4d07:0x828c3f617473f010?hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justus R (talk • contribs) 14:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Baseball field/Comments (baseball), and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Good page
It's inacurate to say, "In the middle of the square is a low artificial hill called the pitcher's mound." The mound is not in the center. It is closer to the home plate. This wording causes confusion, and many aritechs mistakenly put mounds in the center of the square. TroyTroyFrazier (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply |
Last edited at 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
In the section on Specifications, the article says in the first paragraph:
And the second paragraph confirms this definition when it refers to
This seems precise: the infield is the ninety-foot square bounded by the baselines. But it is contradicted by the accompanying diagram, which shows (2) that the infield extends outward in fair territory to the grass line beyond the base paths. In fact, the labeling of the diagram suggests that the "infield" is only the dirt area between the base paths and the grass line, and does not include the ninety-foot square; but I assume this was just carelessness.
And then in the third paragraph, there is still another definition:
So this implies that there is no specific boundary where the "infield" stops.
So which usage is correct? In the official MLB rules, Rule 2.01 clearly indicates that definition 1 is correct. But the Definitions at the end of the rulebook say that an infielder "is a fielder who occupies a position in the infield", and it seems obvious that the term should include basemen and shortstops who commonly stand just outside the infield according to definition 1. So I think that in the definition of "infielder" they intend some other definition of "infield" to apply, probably definition 3. I have not looked at other baseball rule books to see if any of them use definition 2 or make definition 3 the official one.
I think the article needs to be corrected so that it does not contradict itself; if the word "infield" is used in different ways, then it should say so, and if only one meaning is correct, then that's the only one it should use. And in either case, the diagram (and also the linked article Infield) should be corrected as necessary to conform. I'm not a serious enough fan of the sport to make the decision myself; let's see it fixed by someone who is, please. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The section headed "Batter's box and catcher's box" doesn't actually contain any information on the catcher's box at all, not even simple dimensions. Is it just mislabelled? -- Psmith (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I see this section has been tagged for several years. I have a 1915 clipping that gives a lot of history of the development of the various lines, but I can't find it in newspapers.com. Happy to email it to someone? --valereee (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm guessing the pointed corner either points directly back (toward the catcher) or directly forward, but I don't honestly know, I came to Wikipedia for this information. Others may have the same question, I humbly request that this information be added. Fluoborate (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply