Talk:Batting (baseball)

"A DH acts as a permanent pinch hitter for the pitcher."

I don't follow baseball as much as I used to, and I always followed the National League, but I'm wondering if the above sentence (taken from the pinch hitter section) is literally true. I'd think DH and P are more like separate positions, e.g. a DH might switch positions with the 1Baseman at some point during the game (same as the right fielder might) but that wouldn't be clear if he was viewed as a permanent pinch hitter." Anybody know for sure? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Frontal Nudity?

I didn't delete the gif in the "History of the Bat" section, but I'm wondering if it's appropriate to show penis in an article that has literally nothing to do with penis.~DG (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Somebody else did remove it and I reverted it back in. I'm astounded that somebody would take offense at a barely visible penis in Wikipedia. The image is historical - before motion pictures! It shows that batting has not changed much in the last 130 years (though it obviously has changed). It also shows batting in a much clearer way than anything else we have here. A classic set of photos that still does a great job. No need for prudishness! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not about prudishness. There is no need for this image to be in this article. It illustrates nothing, adds nothing of value and it diminishes the article by making an innocuous topic into needless titillation. Do you really feel it's necessary for a kid looking up baseball topics to see this? There are topics where nudity (even 100 year old grainy sepia nudity) can be a valuable part of an article, but not here. There is already a link to the Commons category where people can peruse those images if they wish to do so. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess you just don't realize what you are seeing. Edward Muybridge made the first human and animal motion studies, in the 1870s and 1880s, before there were motion pictures. These are monuments of human understanding and technology. Looking at one of these and complaining about titillation is like going to an art museum and saying "I liked it, but wish they would put on some clothes!" I've included several of his ground-breaking studies, and note that almost all of his human motion studies include nudes. These are immensely valuable because they actually show what is happening with the body, unlike that video of the Japanese slap-hitters back that's in the article. These are also great art, e.g. the Woman descending a staircase is often mentioned as an inspiration for DuChamps painting of the same subject. Compared to this photo sequence 90% or this article is trivia.

I'm putting it back.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Should the short film of a naked man batting be included in the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel the inclusion of this animation in this particular article is unnecessary. As a topic that is innocuous at best and probably used for reference by minors, there is no intrinsic value whatsoever in including a grainy animation of a naked man with a flapping penis. As I stated above, there is already a Commons category link in the page where people can watch these images if they so wish. Wikipedia is not censored but it's also not "edgy". We don't remove images of a vulva in the vulva article, or images of penises in the penis article. But just because we have that file in the Commons and just because the naked man happens to be swinging a bat doesn't mean we have to use it in the batting article. Proposal: Remove the image from the article as unnecessary. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support As RFC originator. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep the image - this is a classic human motion study of the act of batting. Clearly relevant and there is no alternative. If you want to make a video of a human body batting and put a jock strap on the batter, that would be ok with me, but it would have to be of equal quality. Besides showing the act of batting in detail (without clothes to hide the action of the muscles), it also reflects the fairly small changes in batting style in the last 130 years (look at the front foot). Classic, on topic, and no policy based reason given to remove it. See above for a more complete response. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• The clip actually shows an atypical batting style for 1897. Batters almost never had their hands together down at the knob, as this guy appears to be doing. There has been a great change in batting style since 1897, the Babe Ruth-led revolution. The National League home run champion for 1897 had 11, a little lower than average but basically typical. This is because batters typically choked up and held their hands apart, to make contact and get the ball in play. If our subject tried this batting style in an actual 1897 game, he'd likely be sat down, labeled a show-off and busher, and told that going for the long ball like that is a suckers game that'd just get him long fly outs. (I wasn't there, but this is from my memory of an essay in the Bill James Historical Abstract (first edition), and James has studied this some). So if we're showing "fairly small changes in batting style in the last 130 years", we're showing false information, I think. Herostratus (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• keep the imageSupportWhile I wasn't invited to take part in this, the invite showed up on a page I was watching and I became aware of it. In keeping with the community spirit of wikipedia I decided to offer up an opinion. I hope no one minds.
  The issue of nudity is an odd one. Cultural mores very widely accross the globe on this issue. And I think this RFC relates to that issue. In most nations of the planet the human body is not viewed as something of which we should be ashamed or overly worried about exposing, but those cultures which are against it are strongly so.
  This image (which by the way does not show up for me on this RFC page but does on the main page) is clearly a study of body mechanics, and not meant in any way to be offensive or pornographic. Since Wikipedia is meant to cater to the whole world, it should not impose views and beliefs which are culture specific to the material they display, and this image is a fantastic example, both of the study of motion, and of the potential for cultural bias.
  Being American myself I understand why this image would offend some, as My country is quite outspoken about nudity (both for and against), but when used properly, as I feel this image is, the context needs to be considered. And this is appropriate.
  As a seperate issue, what of the possability to create a user preference involving racy material? A simple on/off flag? Wikipedia's standards are well known, but the ability of so few to monitor so much is questionable. ANd they should not have to, as this is an issue which I feel should be handled by individuals, and individual parents.
  Wikipedia should never allow itself to be forced into the position of baby sitter for others when valid material is being used, but individuals might want the ability to choose. Parents for example might wish to restrict these images from children even though they are contextually correct.
  Just my two cents. No offence to any was intended. C.Jason.B (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  
  • After having re-read the article, and the material at WP:PERTINENCE (provided by Mr. Stradivarius) I have to concur that it should be removed. While the arguments about human motion are valid, the article itself refers only very vaguley to this, thus the image's relevance to the article in question is highly suspect and limited. It appears my well thought out argument was not as well thought out as I believed. C.Jason.B (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support removing the image, for two reasons. First, it will probably shock many of our readers, as they will not be expecting to see an animation of a naked man in an article about baseball. A sizeable percentage of our readers may also find the animation offensive, and we should think especially carefully before we include such media in our articles. Second, the animation isn't mentioned in the text of the article at all. If the animation itself was recognised to be signification to the history of batting, then I would say include it. However, I can't see any indication that it is anything more than an illustration of a man batting; it, in itself, does not appear to have affected the history of batting in any significant way. In other words, I think covering the topic would consist of undue weight here, and if we don't cover the topic, then the image falls foul of WP:PERTINENCE. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment frankly I'm astonished that people would consider this classic human-motion study of batting to not be pertinent (i.e. relevant) to an article on batting. To quote WP:PERTINENCE "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." This "video" obviously is relevant to the subject of batting. Given its relevance and the lack of any similar alternative material, this is exactly the type of material that WP:NOTCENSORED refers to. WP had (and has) a choice to keep out material that might offend *some especially squeamish people* but has chosen not to in the interests of providing information to the general public. If you want to keep out this material, you should try to change the WP:NOTCENSORED policy first.

I do have sympathy for folks who want to keep pornography and intentionally offensive material off WP, but this is neither of those. Folks who think this material is sexually provocative haven't watched a film approved for 13 year olds lately, or watched cable TV channels, or even looked at the ads in the New York Times Magazine lately.

I looked for a noticeboard or some place where this could be reasonably publicized for comment, but the best I can think of is at User talk:Jimbo. If you can think of other reasonable alternatives, please publicize it there.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep the image. You want history, you get history. You want science, you get science. Wikipedia should try to include everything that some people want, not exclude everything that some people don't want. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ASTONISH--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal The movie is of historical interest in the fields of motion studies, or arguably even movie-making, but it is of no apparent notability in the history of baseball or batting, the subject of this article. (Test: Is this film discussed prominently in books on baseball? If that is indeed the case, I'll reconsider). Its current placement in the History of the bat section is reminiscent of a keyword search failure that fails to distinguish the concept of "historical film with a bat in it" from "a film about the history of batting". A image/montage illustrating evolving bat designs would be an example of an actually relevant image for the section. Abecedare (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal, per Mr. Stradivarius. Move the moving image to Eadweard Muybridge, where it is pertinent to the text, "He also photographed athletic activities such as baseball, cricket, football, boxing, wrestling, fencing, rowing, discus throwing, and a ballet dancer performing.", which is in the Later motion studies section. We already have a video of Masato Akamatsu batting a ball in the article. The idea that this shows "changes in batting style in the last 130 years" is silly. It's just one random image of one random batter, which says nothing about the typical batting style of the era—who says all batters have the same style? The image is more relevant to early photographic motion studies than it is to batting. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. This is the equivalent of having a picture of Godzilla stomping on Tokyo in front of the sky, and putting it in the article for "sky". The most significant feature of the image/clip, to most viewers, is something other than what the image/clip is being used to illustrate.

And while it's true that the clip was made for legitimate research purposes, it doesn't follow that either 1) those purposes are relevant to the article, or 2) the people who want to include it really want it included for that reason. More likely they just like seeing naked people with penises in Wikipedia and would have just found a different reason to endorse the image if they couldn't use that one. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ken, could you please refactor your !vote to not include disparaging remarks that violate our policy on AGF? You just personally attacked everyone who !voted to keep and have intimidated anyone who may go on to !vote to keep. I take great offence to your remarks. Oh and- Keep the damn image you puritan idiots.Camelbinky (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support removal per WP:ASTONISH. We could conceivably have a naked human video for every activity we engage in (running, jumping, pole vaulting, swimming, golfing, playing tennis, etc.) but no reader would remotely expect these to appear in the articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal, per basic WP:IUP#Content: images should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article. The historical video clip is unrepresentative in that baseball typically has not been played in the nude. If we had a solid section on either nude batting or the history of motion studies as they pertained to batting, an argument might be made for keeping it, though even then a counterargument might be made that such a section was itself either off-topic or undue. I can certainly imagine other articles in which I would find this video clip appropriate. Not to mention amusing. And I'll never view a blacksmith in the same way again. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. The video is one of historical significance, along with others in the series. But it's significance has nothing to do with baseball. It adds nothing to the article, except incongruity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry Smallbones--I don't like disagreeing with you, but I don't think that this (great footage) adds much to this particular article. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Remove - I don't see where this really helps the article. It might be beneficial in an article on the musculature of the human body while in motion, but this is about baseball. The opening lead says "batting is the act of facing the opposing pitcher and trying to produce offense for one's team. There is no pitcher, no offense and no team here. Kids do read this wikipedia and sometimes, like it or not, to convey the information we need to show nudity because it's vital to a proper explanation. Here it really has no use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Remove - Gratuitous nudity. It's actually a really horrific swing that that guy is demonstrating, I've got a better cut and am 52 years old and have never played. But you can see his pee-pee, oh goody, Wikipedia is not censored!!! Grrrrrr. Carrite (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Remove. Let's pretend for a moment that nobody objects to the lack of clothing. This image still isn't particularly helpful for this article, because when playing baseball, batters are always clothed. I see this image being useful for anatomical studies and for Muybridge-related topics, but it depicts a scene that's highly atypical of baseball batting. Nyttend (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Remove per Drmies, Nyttend, and many others. JKadavoor Jee 06:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Remove Animated gifs are generally best avoided unless they add a lot to the article. This one does not.Geni (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal Adds nothing, just weird when looking at article, even the editor supporting its inclusion goes on about the photographer not batting. Put it in the photographer's article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC))
• Remove per WP:ASTONISH, WP:FLABBERGAST, WP:DUMBFOUND. and WP:STUPEFY. People are very attuned to the depiction of sexual organs, and to some extent can't help but be distracted from matter at hand by the presence of such. For good or ill that's just how humans (and most primates, I think) roll. So they guy's going to be distracting, I think, and that detracts from what we're trying to do in this article. As a secondary point, I'm pretty sure (not 100% positive) that this is an incorrect depiction of 19th century batting style, and to the extent that the user might infer that this depicts actual old-timey batting style, she'd have been mislead. I expounded on this above in my reply to the first vote. Herostratus (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep image. It's a simple case of WP:NOTCENSORED. OP said that this page might be used by minors: this is irrelevant, as our disclaimer warns of such things appearing. This is history; we can't shy out of this because some people are offended by the sight of the human body. — Richard BB 11:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not a "simple case" of WP:NOTCENSORED. It's a case of how relevant the video is to the article. To expand on my point above, we could get videos of trained monkeys performing the activities I listed. They wouldn't go in articles either because they wouldn't be particularly relevant or expected for these topics. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Shoot, if you can train a monkey to hit a baseball I'd love to see video in our article. Can't we have a little salt on it? Wnt (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This is admittedly a pretty obscure point, but that ball's out of the strike zone and he probably shouldn't be swinging at all. Also, he's not wearing clothes or protective equipment. There's more to batting than swinging a bat: the first sentence of the article says "In baseball, batting is the act of facing the opposing pitcher and trying to produce offense for one's team." If he does bloop it into the outfield and there's a close play at second, he's in no position to slide without serious skin abrasion, so he's deliberately degrading his ability to put himself in scoring position. In addition, if I was pitching, I know what I'd do: move him off the plate with fastballs inside between the waist and knee. If he's human that's got to get his attention, given the lack of protective equipment; then I finish him off with breaking balls high and outside -- he's got to either lunge at those or get called out on strikes. All in all a pretty poor example of "trying to produce offense", so I wonder if we should be presenting it as such. Herostratus (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless by "offense" is meant "a violation or breaking of a social or moral rule" or "a transgression of the law" or "the act of offending or displeasing" or something. Maybe that's it? Strange game, if that's it... Herostratus (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Image removed. I've removed the image, as the consensus above seemed pretty strong to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Link to image in question (for archival purposes) File:Animation of top row of Plate 279, Baseball; batting (4057432207) faster.gif -- ToE 12:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've put the image back. We can wait for the RfC to be closed. The two arguements here to remove seem to be

• The a "video" of someone performing the act of hitting a baseball is irrelevant to an article on Batting (baseball), which is simple nonsense, and
• A penis however small is not allowed in a Wikipedia article, which is a a simple contradiction of WP:NOTCENSORED

Hopefully a closing admin will understand that a consensus cannot override Wikipedia policy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to hold out for an admin close then that's fine by me, but a glance at the above suggests to me that it would only be delaying the inevitable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoever closes this will not have a clue what to do with your penis size argument. But, I see it's not what I thought it was about. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

Huh? Smallbones's argument is pretty clear to me. Size matters: his argument is clearly that there is no huge distracting dick in it. I don't think the animation should be kept, but that doesn't mean I don't understand what he's saying. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, and now that it's been brought up, this elephant in the room needs to be addressed. Simply put, they guy's penis is too small. This is supposed to be a top-flight operation here, not shrinkydinks on parade. If we're going to have penises in our baseball articles, can we at least have something worthy of the world's greatest encyclopedia? This is the sort of second-rate genitalia I'd expect to see in the baseball articles in Collier's or Encarta or something. Let's have some standards here, people. Herostratus (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

Herostratus, that dude is hung. Leave him/his alone, or I'll dick-slap you with a warning for a BLP violation (Belittling of Lengthy Penises). Drmies (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't go there. No way. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

Well Drmies, I was comparing him to the nearest example I had at hand. Herostratus (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have missed my argument.Geni (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Herostratus does not lead in this area! --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

Geni, you're right. Geni said earlier "Animated gifs are generally best avoided unless they add a lot to the article. This one does not.". Very good Geni, but perhaps a bit subtle for this crowd? As to you, AfadsBad, the only way to settle this would be through direct comparison. I suggest that the next Wikimania feature an all-out (so to speak) competition of all (male) participants (After all, the Wikipedia is not censored, and neither should be Wikimania). Winner is crowned Biggest Dick on Wikipedia (a title currently held by a certain gentleman of my acquaintance here whom I'm sure is too modest to be named), and, in the time-honored manner of primates everywhere, becomes the pack leader. Herostratus (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Now the video is under the head "History of the Bat" where I see it has little relevance to the description. I think File:Wie funktioniert Baseball .ogg may more suitable to document the game. JKadavoor Jee 16:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to grant that Herostratus makes a colorful argument. I suppose what bothers us about this process is that people are trying to shove this image out as irrelevant before there is any real scarcity of space in the article. Come up with some more videos illustrating various professional pitching styles and you'll probably get us to admit that it's time for this to move to some more specialized article. But when people seem more interested in taking stuff that is at least somewhat relevant out of an article than filling it with the content it needs the most, that is not good at all. Wnt (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What? What batting style is it representing? There is not a clue to that in the article; the caption is about the photographs and the photographer. How about we just remove it until it establishes that it is "somewhat relevant," with sources? --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

• Note: I've left a request that this RfC be closed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Batting (baseball). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140813034018/http://www.baseballexplained.com/ to http://www.baseballexplained.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140813034018/http://www.baseballexplained.com/ to http://www.baseballexplained.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)