|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.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for Baseball field:|
Discussion on merge
- Merge It is fruitless task to produce an article (home plate) that is already wholly described in a more aptly written article (baseball field). The 'home plate' article should be deleted/merged. Salluste 06:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Unless there are also separate articles about first, second and third bases. While you're at it, I think there is also a separate article about the pitcher's mound, although it at least has some extra detail. Wahkeenah 14:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Although there is as yet no information on the black part of home. Tahrlis 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_%28disambiguation%29 "diamond" refers only to the infield. This causes some confusion. User:188.8.131.52 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- So, fix it already. Wahkeenah 12:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
someone should add a popular cuture ref to the bases >--> make out, hold hands ...
- There is a separate article on the subject: Baseball metaphors for sex. Wahkeenah 10:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Since the foul lies are at 90 degrees, and since edges of homeplate, first base, and third base are aligned on those foul lines, and since the outer points of all the bases are 90' apart, the bases describe a perfect square. Given a 90 degree corner and 4 sides all of regular length, there is no offset as suggested by the text. Accordingly, I am removing the suggestion of an offset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's not quite correct. The actual "bases" are the 4 corners of that 90 foot square. However, home, first and third each sit with one of their corners touching that point that defines the base, whereas second base sits on top of its point that defines the base. Since were talking a few inches departure from a straight line between the bags across 90 feet, it's a fairly negligible factor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the opening statement is not quite correct. My 2009 edit about the small, subtle "offset" difference between 2nd base and the other three bases became part of the article and has been flagged in 2012 as needing a citation. My edit also includes a statement about the actual, physical, "touch-to-touch" distance between bases 1-and-2 and 2-and-3 as being less-than the precise field layout dimension of 90 feet. The former subtlety is illustrated (without any supporting text that I can find) in DIAGRAM NO 2, Page 5 of "OFFICIAL RULES OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL", 2013 Edition (Triumph Books, Publisher; ISBN: 978-1-60078-797-3) as well as elsewhere, including Online at http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2013/official_baseball_rules.pdf. The latter statement is merely a calculation based on the dimensions of the 15-inch-square "bags" used to mark the "base" locations of 1st, 2nd and 3rd [D = 90 feet minus (15 + 7.5 inches = 22.5 inches ≈ 1 foot 10 inches) ≈ 88 feet]. This - for example - would be significant as the maximum (no-lead, ground-based) distance D to be covered by a base-stealing runner in advancing from safely occupying the 1st-base-bag to safely occupying the 2nd-base-bag. Since I have no experience in adding citations, I trust that this will be enough information for someone interested to provide the copy-editing required; if not, let me know and I will learn how to do it. Thanks, Ed Satchelp (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satchelp (talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Satchelp (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have added a citation  where the need was indicated. I trust that this citation is sufficient and consistent with Wiki Rules. I await comments.Satchelp (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- As I worked on this issue, I noticed that the diagram called "Diagram of a baseball field" in this article is slightly in error with respect to the placement of the tiny white squares indicating the three base bags at 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Since the 90 foot mark is not explicitly indicated on the diagram, one can only make a relative statement about the error; viz, if 1st and 3rd are assumed correctly placed, then 2nd is misplaced, and conversely. My conclusion here is based on the apparent "alignment" of both 1st and 3rd with 2nd as they appear in the diagram. I trust we can agree that my citation(s) show(s) that they are not aligned, albeit by a tiny (7.5 inches) amount, This tiny offset is clearly indicated in the citation(s).Satchelp (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Where is it? I see second, third, and home, but no first. megarockman 14:44, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
- It's there. Wahkeenah 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"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))
- Typical baseball mechanics hold that a right-handed first baseman touches the base with his right foot. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- One reason that a left-handed firstbaseman uses his left foot to touch first base is that the distance between his left foot (touching the bag) and his right hand (where his glove is; catching the ball) is further. This lets him stretch further, such as to be able to catch poorly aimed throws. A minor point is that it lets his glove reach further toward the throw, giving him a tiny time advantage over the approaching runner. A bigger point is that if, after the catch, he might need to throw the ball somewhere else, that left foot is his "rear foot" and should be planted to avoid an off-balance throw. If I were to have my left foot against the bag when catching a ball with the glove on my left hand, then before throwing, I would want to plant my right foot. That costs time. Doing it as the article suggests makes you a surer receiver and a surer thrower of the ball. Put a pillow on the ground as "first base" and play pretend, both ways, and you may see what I'm talking about. Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Organization of base-specific sections
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.
- Kchu1701 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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. 220.127.116.11 13:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, and it should be re-worded for clarity. It might be worth bringing up Coco Crisp's final out on Sunday night, in which he banged into part of the wall that is NOT padded. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- It could be. Sometimes the wall itself is part of the batter's background, i.e. it's painted a darker color than the rest of the outfield wall. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's discussed in detail in Glory Fades Away, by Jerry Lansch. The last time the pitcher's box was defined, in 1887, its front line was 50 feet from the plate, and the back line was 55 1/2 feet from the plate, and the pitcher had to keep his foot on the back line during delivery. In 1893 they added exactly 5 feet to that back line and took away the rest of the box since it was no longer needed. I thought the article already explained that. Maybe someone rubbed it out or distorted it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, it is there. I just found it. But the amount of text between "not due to a clerical or surveying error as popular myth has it, but purposely (as noted below)" and "Exactly 5 feet was added" is over 100 lines. That is really BELOW! Can we put the answer closer to the question? Kingturtle (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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))
- Regarding "claims of average MLB distances", what are you referring to, specifically? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In the Home plate section this article states
- The plate is shaped the way it is in order to help the umpire judge balls and strikes.
- How does the shape help him do this? -- User:BrianFennell 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- "In most cases in major and minor league parks, teams will keep the same home plate for decades despite moves to new home stadiums to retain a visible form of team heritage, and the home plate will be ceremonially removed from the old stadium upon that site's last game. An equivalent ceremony then takes place later to seat the plate in the team's new playing field."
On Deck Circles ?
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)
Painted White Grass Line
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+Walkeremail@example.com,-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)
Baseball assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at 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., and are posted here for posterity. Following
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)
Last edited at 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is the "infield"?
In the section on Specifications, the article says in the first paragraph:
- (1) These three bags along with home plate form the four points at the corners of the infield.
And the second paragraph confirms this definition when it refers to
- (1A) the ninety-foot infield square.
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:
- (3) The area in the vicinity of the square formed by the bases is called the infield...
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. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)