Talk:The Catch (baseball)

Endy Chavez

I do not think Endy Chavez's catch deserves a place on this page. It's definitely not "the catch," and we can't list every time an outfielder caught a baseball. I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket Red (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, maybe there should be a separate article for the chavez catch —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.154.22.149 (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

The Mets ended up losing that game and thus the NLCS, so that catch really has very little significance. Wahkeenah 12:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Chavez content (WP:BOLD). I noticed that it was the contribution of one anonymous editor, but hasn't really been expanded by anybody else. --Madchester 18:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with 1954 World Series?

Shouldn't this be two seperate entries? User:MrCalifornia 22:26, 29 September 2004 (UTC)

Yes User:Gareth Owen 06:14, 30 September 2004 (UTC)

No reason given for merge. User:Jacobolus 04:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose "The Catch" is famous in it's own right, like Babe Ruth's Called Shot, and the Shot Heard 'Round the World, and should have its own article. Much have been written about these 3 famous plays, and are more notable than many other articles in wikipedia --rogerd 04:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose "The Catch" is more famous than the rest of that world series, and is part of American popular culture. It deserves its own article. Incidentally, if there's no reason given for the merge, could someone please remove the tags. I did, but they were re-added with no rationale given. --jacobolus (t) 04:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it separate Like the 1932 and 1951 events, it is the defining moment of that season. And regarding no rationale having been given to the contrary, keep in mind that oftimes rationale "don't enter into it". Wahkeenah 12:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Second thought the World Series article is not overly large, and some of the informaiton overlaps, so a merger and a redirect from this one shouldn't make the Series article unwieldy.
• Oppose. The Catch is bigger than the 1954 World Series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.39.130 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I'm astonished to learn that there's an entire article devoted to one play. Insane. Regarding "The Shot Heard Round the World"--that was not in a world series game, but the 1951 three-game playoff between the Giants and Dodgers to decide the National League championship. To my knowledge, there is no entry for that playoff series. I think it's real craziness to maintain separate articles for a playoff series and particular events within that same playoff series. Vidor 19:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The Catch is the greatest fielding play of all time.--Mike Selinker 08:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, Willie himself disagrees on that. But it's certainly among the most famous fielding plays, if not the most famous. Wahkeenah 13:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that The Catch definitely deserves it's own page. It is much more important than the 1954 World Series. If any of the articles stand it should be this one. --Rocket Red

Otis Nixon

If we're mentioning all legendary baseball catches, then Otis Nixon's catch on July 25, 1992 needs mention. If you mention the moniker "The Catch" to true Braves fans, this catch is the first and only thing they'll think of. Nixon scaled a roughly 9 foot outfield wall to rob Andy Van Slyke of a home run. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• That was probably not a play that turned a World Series. Wahkeenah 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither was Endy Chavez's. His was during the NLCS and the Mets lost that game and that series. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

450 feet?

If we see the pic, does it really look like the estimate of "450 feet" is an exaggeration? Is there a citation for the claim that it's an exaggeration? -- Sholom 13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• The authors of the original "Encyclopedia of Baseball", ca. 1950, put a tape measure to it and came up with something like 425 feet to the corner of the runway. Aerial photographs and blueprints also confirm this. The photo makes that corner look closer to the 483 mark, which really is an "optical illusion" caused by the "scrunching" effect of the telephoto lens. And if you think about it, the far left and right center corners were posted at about 450, so simple geometry would tell you that the almost-straightaway bleacher corners should be less than 450. Wahkeenah 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of uploading the 1950 diagram for now, I direct interested parties to this site [1] which makes it clear that (1) the two rounded corners were less than 460 from the plate, thus it is not geometrically possible for the straightaway corner to be as much as 460; and (2) it is clear the runway is 50-60 feet deep, which puts the front corner in the 415-430 range, which is also what the 1951 book shows, and which aerial photographs confirm. Also, keep in mind that you had Brickhouse saying "about 460", based on nothing except the same visual perspective distortion that misleads people when they see the photos of this play... namely, that the front corner "seems" closer to the 483 sign than it really is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Another Famous Quote

Good to see the Don Liddle "I got my man out," quip. There's another good quote that maybe someone can verify. One of the key Dusty Rhodes home runs just made it inside a 251-foot foul pole, which caused Al Lopez to say that his team got beat by the shortest homer and the longest out. WHPratt (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, some accounts say that it just caught an overhanging part of the upper deck, and may have gone less than 250 feet, so that it was really a very lucky pop fly. WHPratt (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The overhang was in left field.[2] The right field upper deck was plumb with the wall.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the quote. It's Indians' manager Al Lopez.
"Well, we were beaten by the longest out and the shortest homer of the year."
Lewiston (Maine) Evening Journal, 28 Sep 1954
Found in a Google search. WHPratt (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusing text

"Doby, the runner on second, might have been able to score the go-ahead run had he tagged at the moment the ball was caught; as it was, he ran when the ball was hit, then had to scramble back to retag and only got as far as third base."

Reading "had to scramble back" and then "only got as far as third base" plants the suggestion that Doby got doubled off at second, which was not the case. I'd suggest wording such as ...

"Doby, the runner on second, might have been able to score the go-ahead run had he tagged at the moment the ball was caught. However, having run when the ball was hit, he had time only to retag and then advance to third."

WHPratt (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• As someone not from America, I found most of the article incomprehensible because of the technical language used. There is too much presumption of prior knowledge of technical terms and vernacular for this to be understandable to most outside the US. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• I like to change suggested by WHPratt, I might further suggest adjusting "had he tagged at the moment the ball was caught" to say "had he waited at second until the ball was caught". In fairness to Doby, he may have been forced/influenced to run by Rosen approaching, looking to score from first on a long base hit; had first base been open, waiting at second in that scenario feels more likely. SchroCat, is the concern US vernacular or baseball vernacular? An example or two of what you found incomprehensible would be helpful. Thanks Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in that version, its being less jargon and more colloquial. I apologize for the non-word "retag." It's really unfair to blame the runner(s), as nobody thought anybody was going to make the play. Nobody except Willie, that is!WHPratt (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Baseball vernacular. I know that most of the terms will be deeply embedded into the language and culture of the US, which means many people will not have considered just how confusing it is. In terms of examples, and just to give you a flavour, what I don't understand is in bold, and what I don't know, but have made an educated guess at is in italics:

In the top of the 8th inning with the score tied 2–2,[1] Giants starting pitcher Sal Maglie walked Indians lead off hitter Larry Doby. Al Rosen singled, putting runners on first and second.[2] New York manager Leo Durocher summoned left-handed relief pitcher Don Liddle to pitch to Cleveland's Wertz, a left-handed batter.[2]

Wertz worked the count to two balls and one strike before hitting Liddle's fourth pitch approximately 420 feet to deep center field.

I know it's a difficult thing to re-write what is second nature for an audience that has no background knowledge - particularly without dumbing it down for any American readers who would wonder why obvious terms are being explained or missed out for a longer explanation, but it may help reach a wider readership. By way of contrast, I know that cricket can be an alien language to many, but the FAs written on that are done quite well, carrying a lighter load of technical terms, and interspersed with explanations for the some of the technical words that can't be left out. Aside from not understanding some of the technical side, I thought this was a nicely put together article, by the way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't have a good answer for you, as expanding or revising the article to explain terms like those would make it quite long and burdensome. Reading content (WP or elsewhere) about a particular sport does require some degree of understanding on the part of the reader; a cricket article discussing a famous test match should not go out of its way to explain what an over is. There should be other content that can provide info about baseball terms; Glossary of baseball may be helpful. Sorry that this reply probably isn't very helpful, but hopefully it doesn't deter your continued interest in baseball. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Writers have to vary the words used a bit, (e.g., "home run," "homer") lest the text induce boredom. We should be striving for clarity, above all, and avoiding sportswriter jive (don't use "circuit clout," "tater," or "Ballantine Blast").

I think that the passage under discussion is has a further complication to it: a runner scoring from second base on a sacrifice fly is a rare event. The fact that such is even considered here is testament to how difficult it would be to catch that ball and recover in time to make the throw. I tried rewriting it like this

On a drive hit so deep and forcing the fielder to run away from the infield, Doby might well have been able to tag up at second and score a run on a sacrifice fly. As it developed, Doby had to scramble back to second to tag up and he still had time to advance to third.

which isn't much better! WHPratt (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Before further consideration of the specific wording, I don't currently see a source for the "might have been able to score from second" analysis/commentary. One should be established.... Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That idea had been in the article for some time, so I just ran with it. I suppose we need to quote some sportswriter, coach, ballplayer or other witness as to whether there was any chance of that happening. WHPratt (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Just getting a chance to read this again, and I don't think that the idea that Doby just might have scored from second after the catch is merely opinion, and somehow too strong a statement. You've got a fly ball driven to the deepest part of the most freakishly deep ballpark ever, with the fielder running away from the play. Also, runners have now and again scored from second on far less extreme fly outs. It would be hard to find a better situation for such an occurrence! WHPratt (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with the current wording, given the context as you've noted. Support via a citation would still be good to have; something to keep an eye out for. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whose opinion we could cite! Not Mays: he was too busy making the catch to watch the runners. Now, maybe if the third base coach had been quoted as to whether or not he'd wave Doby around third on a catch, or Doby himself as to whether he thought it could be a two-base sac-fly. Maybe the Indians' catcher would have had the best view and the best appraisal. WHPratt (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I just saw a rerun of the Ken Burns *Baseball* segment, 7th Inning – The Capital of Baseball; Original airdate: Monday, September 26, 1994. When Mays' catch is covered, Monte Irvin is one of the talking heads via film clips, and he states that Doby could have scored from second had he tagged up. That's a pretty good, eyewitness authority, I'd say. WHPratt (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice find, and worth adding as a citation in the article. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Added, unobtrusively I hope, in a footnote: putting the quote in the main text seemed overkill. I couldn't find a style guide for quotes from TV shows, so I improvised. Someone might be able to improve upon it. Incidentally, the quote is approximately 1:24 into the 2:11 episode. WHPratt (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That's great. I just updated the citation using the "cite AV media" template, and I was able to find the video on YouTube so added a link to the segment of interest as well. Makes a nice addition to the page, thank you. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! WHPratt (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)