Talk:Pitcher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Baseball (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Question[edit]

In MLB, is a pitcher allowed to pitch as many days of the year as his team elects him to do so or must they rest each and every pitcher a given number of days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferson61345 (talkcontribs) 06:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Picture[edit]

it says its brandan claussen but he's left handed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.192.113 (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Stages[edit]

What are the different stages of the pitch called (like in the 4-part picture at the top of the article)? I know that the beginning is the wind-up, but are there other names for the other parts of the routine? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:08, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know that there are specific names, but carrying on from your label for the first one ("the wind-up"), I might say that the next three stages could be referred to as "the delivery" (referring to the forward motion of the arm), "the release" (strictly speaking, when the ball leaves the hand), and "the follow-through" (the continuation after the ball is gone). HTH.
Rdikeman 18:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
As a pitcher myself, I can answer this:
1. Apex of leg-kick.
2. Landing position
3. Rotation/release
4. Follow-through
This is not the complete wind-up, there is also the ready position (before 1), the rocker-step (also before 1), and the stride (before 2).
I have actually been kicking around the idea of expanding this article to go into much more depth about the act of pitching itself. Does anyone else agree/disagree with this idea before I begin? -- Ubergenius 14:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we talk about the different styles of throwing the ball? This article seems to make no mention of the fact that different pitchers throw the ball differently than normal, like sidearm (Yankees' Mike Myers) and submarine (Mets' Chad Bradford) styles.

  • There is already an article on the submarine throwing style, so I'll put a mention in the article. There's no article about the sidearm style so that should be mentioned in this article or have its own article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Move proposal[edit]

There are a huge number of articles linked to Pitcher, which is currently a disambiguation page; I couldn't find any linking to the page for the container, as they are virtually all for the baseball position. The number of articles linking to Pitching is much lower. I would propose shifting the article to Pitcher, with a note directing to the article for the container. I suppose making Pitcher into a redirect rather than a disambig would be another option, but I think it's less preferable. MisfitToys 22:46, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 19:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lists of players[edit]

How is Chris Carpenter nothing special? Roy Oswalt has never won a Cy Young Award, C.C. has.

Just noticed the length of lists on this page -- do we want to consider making a List of baseball pitchers page for them? Ojw 22:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't Tim Wakefield, as the most prominent Knuckleballer in MLB right now, be on this list? I only ask because it’s such a rare and specialized pitch. 206.57.3.174 15:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is Wang of the Yankees listed among notable pitchers? The rest of the pitchers listed are all-stars and players with long distinguished careers. I am going to remove him.

I have added Dave Stewart, who has four twenty-win seasons in an otherwise-mediocre career... but those four seasons are enough to establish him as a significant pitcher. I have added J.R, Richard, a certifiably great pitcher until a stroke cut one of the most promising careers short. He had a fastball that some compared to that of Bob Gibson. --Paul from Michigan 14:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is Spencer Hyde? I did a Google search, and the only athlete that I found was a fourteen-year-old kid of strictly local interest. I have deleted those references as vandalism.

Denny McLain

He may be a jailbird and a contemptible character, but he is the last pitcher to win 30 games in a season, and he had two twenties as well. I am not referring to prison sentences! --Paul from Michigan 14:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing Justin Verlander. He's a good pitcher but he's only in his second full year.

Updated the list. Took out: Chris Carpenter(His resume is nothing special), Mark Prior(If this list included every pitching prospect bust, it'd be 1000s of names long), Jake Peavy(65-46 all time? Meh). Added Mark Buehrle and Justin Verlander for recent no-hitters and other noteriety.

This article needs sources?![edit]

Anyone who ever has watched at least three baseball games--on any level of play--cannot seriously question the accuracy of this article (which I have had no part in writing or editing). It's well-written, encyclopedic, and descriptive. Perhaps the "needs sources" tag was put up by someone whose favorite pitcher was left out of a list, or by someone who saw a disliked pitcher listed. Either way, it's inappropriate. At a certain level, all articles require some original writing, and this one is done well.

If you feel the tag is appropriate, please explain why, and please do so within a week. Otherwise, on 10/8, I'm going to try to remove the tag. Please note that I'm open-minded--if there's something I missed, I'm certainly willing to reconsider my position. But it's a well-written article that accurately describes its subject. GeeZee 00:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"the player who passes the baseball"[edit]

"Passes"? That implies that pitcher and batter are on the same team, like a pass between team members in football (soccer) or rugby. Wouldn't something like "throws" be better? – ukexpat (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This Is Amoral - The Search Result Needs To Be Corrected[edit]

Not everyone likes baseball, and it isn't a sport played all over the world... Most people on Earth use the word "pitcher" for a pitcher that contains a drink. The word should direct to the page for that, not a baseball page. You people are too obsessed when logic goes out the window, and you start thinking the world evolves around baseball. You're being offensive, by being inconsiderate to 99% of the Earth, and 99% of your country/ies. Could someone please correct this to searches either going to pitchers (not the baseball term, but actual pitchers, which hold fluid)? (No. Most people in countries where baseball is a thing do not have many actually liking baseball. Not even 50% of such a country is a fan, I promise you. (Yes, I am an American. And, no, most of us don't like baseball. But, most of us do use pitchers for drinks.)) --174.19.181.117 (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You could chill out. You make a fair point, that the container is probably the primary topic, but you do so in such an obnoxious fashion that it undermines your point. oknazevad (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pitcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pitcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Types[edit]

Power pitchers and Control pitchers? I don't know if that is even a thing, but if it is it should be included. There are also closers. Is there something that defines them? Like all out style (not able to control stamina usage) 213.149.61.120 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

and pitching-to-contact type 213.149.61.120 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

and junkballer 213.149.61.120 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 November 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus; the sports use would seem to be the more frequent search term even if there is no WP:PRIMARY, so readers are best served by the status quo, where the hatnote will take them to the container if that is what they are looking for. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)



– At the very least, a WP:NOPRIMARY situation with the Pitcher (container), which has heavy longterm significance compared to the baseball term. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The baseball term, contrary to the nom, is as significant as the liquid container if not much more so. The baseball terminology pertains to the individual mainly responsible for half the action of the game which is called "America's pastime. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Randy Kryn: That would be an example of WP:GLOBAL bias, since only Americans would assume that baseball is the most important meaning of the word. Otherwise, pitcher containers have been used for thousands of years elsewhere in the world. While I am not insinuating that the container is the primary topic, I am saying that the baseball player could not reasonably be the primary topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Then the lede of the container should be changed, since as it now reads that both topics (baseball pitcher and container) are Americanisms. See the discussion below. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportWP:NOPRIMARY at least outside the US. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Very WP:ASTONISH to find the link going to the baseball version. --Gonnym (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. No primary topic. The container is every bit as significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Our articles suggest that pitcher (for a type of container) is as much an Americanism as the baseball term. We also have jug, for example. 216.8.168.68 (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment When I first saw this I thought, yeah that makes sense. However, then I saw the IPs comment. I don't have capacity to really dive into the claims of our article but if our article is correct and both pitcher (container) and pitcher (baseball) are American terms I would strongly suspect pitcher (baseball) to be the primary topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Pitcher is not just an American term, although its modern usage is. It's used historically elsewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Then the lede should be changed. It now reads "In American English, a pitcher is a container with a spout used for storing and pouring liquids. In English-speaking countries outside North America, a jug is any container with a handle and a mouth and spout for liquid — American "pitchers" will be called jugs elsewhere." As both are defined as 'Americanisms' by Wikipedia, as an Americanism it could be argued that between the baseball position and the container the baseball term is primary (as it has been). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    • My guess is that referring to a pitcher of water or beer is fairly universal in the United States and Canada, making it more common than usage of the baseball term. isaacl (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A few of these proposals look reasonable. Don't think I can quite support this one, though. Pitcher is viewed far more often than pitcher (container), so I don't see a way this one helps readers. (Long-term significance is a coin toss, but hard to argue against either of them.) Nohomersryan (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is ridiculous. When someone thinks of a pitcher, its in a baseball context. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    • That sounds like a bit of an Americanocentric view! As an Englishman I'd think of both main terms equally. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Guess I'm no one then? Good to know you speak for everyone. --Gonnym (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Perhaps if you're a baseball fan, or someone familiar with baseball terms. If not, and baseball does not have the popularity it once held, I'm not clear this is the case. isaacl (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per pageview stats, the baseball term is primary, which isn't surprising since the Pitcher is maybe the most important role on a baseball team. (As a side issue, I think it's questionable that Pitcher (container) and Jug are separate articles - I can't fathom what exactly the distinction being made is. Maybe cause for a merge discussion later?) SnowFire (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Being the most important role on a baseball team is really rather irrelevant. For a close equivalent see Bowler! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support no clear primary topic over the container on most days [[1]] also Pitcher plant gets a comparable number of views but is a PTM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • From the article: "An early mention of a pitcher occurs in the Book of Genesis"... how exactly is the topic less encyclopedically notable than a single position in a modern sport?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A mention is one thing, but how many articles or books can you find written about (container) pitchers? There's a reason Pitcher is 4x as long as Pitcher (container), and has at least 100 articles on sub-topics (not counting articles on individual pitchers). There's just a lot more RS coverage dedicated to the topic. Colin M (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack's succinct argument. The vessel gives the initial impression of being highly significant because it's so familiar and has been around for a ridiculously long time. But how many readers are going to be looking up information about jugs in an encyclopedia? What can we even tell them about them? How much RS coverage is there dedicated to jugs? It's just not a very "encyclopedic" topic. Colin M (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • According to pageviews roughly 140 people look up information about the container daily. While the baseball one gets around 400, your argument that the container is not an encyclopedic topic, is not based on evidence whatsoever.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I just said it was less encyclopedic than the sports topic, not that it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia at all. The fact that the sports topic gets 2-3x as many page views as the container is itself evidence of this. Another piece of evidence is that there are about 65 mainspace wikilinks to Pitcher (container) and 14,543 wikilinks to Pitcher. Colin M (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agreed with others with same viewpoint.-- Yankees10 05:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose AjaxSmack has it. The sporting term is widely used (and not just in the US) and has no equivalent term. And why do we have we not merged Pitcher (container) and Jug ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talkcontribs)
  • That's a definite possibility, but even if it's merged, it doesn't really affect the primacy of the term itself.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
      • No it doesn't, but that's just an aside. I obviously agree with some of the above editors that this article should remain as the primary topic. Meters (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.