Do non-Americans "get" baseball movies?

[Flymaster]

Actually, I guess I'm asking more about Europeans and Aussies, here. Given how much US culture gets exported across the globe, and the fact that a goodly portion of our movies revolve around baseball, I wonder if a) those movies are exported at all, and b) if they have the same impact, if they make any sense, or if they do well in theaters at all.

So, EuroDopers, I ask you: Did you cry watching Field of Dreams ? Did you like The Natural? Did Major League ever get released over there? And when you were watching it, did you just ignore the baseball stuff you didn't understand? Or is it just such a common part of American culture that you've managed to pick up what's going on in a 3-2 count with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th with the game on the line?

[blinx]

I've watched a few movies about baseball and have pretty much just ignored all the stuff I didn't understand (just about anything that has to do with baseball).

Same with football, I have absolutely no clue about what the idea of that game is, but I've watched a few movies where it's in anyhow.

[hawthorne]

Baseball - as I understand it - is cricket with chewing tobacco.

So, yes, I got Field of Dreams. As for the rules, they're about as clear to me as hurling. But if it's a good film you can always tell what the significance of a scene is supposed to be.

[psychotropic]

Two of my all time fave movies are about baseball! "Field of Dreams" & "Stealing Home". We do have baseball & softball here anyway and it's very similar to a game we play (mainly in primary school) called rounders. So yeah, we "get" baseball movies. "Major League" was brilliant! "There's no crying in baseball!!!" Luv it. :D

[Wendell Wagner]

One of the standard rules of marketing American films in foreign countries is that baseball (and other purely American sports) movies don't sell well overseas. Here's a list from the book _Pop Culture Wars_ by William D. Romanowski of what sorts of American movies sell well internationally and what sorts are usually disappointments compared to their U.S. audience figures.

Do well internationally (compared to their U.S. audience figures):

Animation
Movies that were blockbusters in the U.S.
Star-driven films
Action/adventure movies
Sex/exploitation films
Films intended for art house theaters

Don't do well internationally (compared to their U.S. audience figures):

Films with themes too specifically American (racial prejudice, American political history films, films about American institutions that aren't well known outside the U.S.)
Films with nearly all-black casts (and all-Hispanic ones or other films aimed at a ethnic audience)
Westerns
Light comedies
Films about American sports

[lissener]

Do non baseball fans get baseball movies?

I'm a huge movie fan, but I have a viseceral aversion to competitive sports (unless they show a lot of skin . . .) and so I often find I don't like a sport-themed movie as much as a sports fan does. More later perhaps; I'm on a library machine and it's timing out.

[Khadaji]

I'm an american and I don't get baseball movies. But then, I don't get baseball. I was terribly disappointed when they didn't strike.

[Miller]

I'm a deeply sports-phobic American, but I love sport-themed movies. Because, of course, the sport is basically a McGuffin for the drama of the plot. I don't need to know my infield fly rule from my designated batter to enjoy the relationship between Kevin Costner and Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham. And, while I may not care for baseball myself, I can appreciate the passions it kindles in other people. The Natural does nothing for me as a movie about baseball, but it works wonders as a movie about people who love baseball.

BTW, psychotropic, the line "There's no crying in baseball!" comes from A Leage of their Own, not Major League.

[Crusoe]

Nope. I can understand the point, and I can understand why they might have an emotional impact, but to me it just seems far removed from something I can really appreciate.

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by Miller
I'm a deeply sports-phobic American, but I love sport-themed movies. Because, of course, the sport is basically a McGuffin for the drama of the plot. I don't need to know my infield fly rule from my designated batter to enjoy the relationship between Kevin Costner and Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham
Well, right, but you DO have to know what a second baseman is, or have a vague idea about the rules, to understand a good number of scenes. As an American, no matter how sports-phobic you are, you've picked up the gist of baseball. You understand at least the basics of baseball, and could describe the rules fairly briefly, in the sense of "There's nine innings, 3 outs an innings, 3 strikes in an out, and you have to get to the base before the ball does." Do people in other countries understand that much of baseball? Because I know I don't understand how many overs there are in a wicket, or who the flanker just tried on that drop goal.

[Charlie Tan]

Well, right, but you DO have to know what a second baseman is, or have a vague idea about the rules, to understand a good number of scenes.

No, you really don't. Sorry, but from this European's point of view it's not essential at all. Mainly becuase the intellectual level of most movies made in Hollywood is made so a 12 year old will get the plot points, McGuffins, main conflict, find the protagonist and antagonist.

And yes, they do get theatrical release.

I enjoyed Field of Dreams and Bull Durham. Any given Sunday was just tiresome, Major Legue was cheesy fun.

[everton]

Well I can't speak for other countries, but I think there are enough sports fans in Britain, Australia and New Zealand who already have enough of a grasp of baseball rules so that the films you've mentioned don't completely confuse us. They may not have been major theatrical successes but Field of Dreams and Major League are often shown on television in the UK, and Cobb[i/], [i]Eight Men Out and A League Of Their Own have been shown too among others.

A lot of the significant plot elements of Major League can be transferred to other sports anyway - the boring road trips, club politics, the relationship between team and fans, the problems faced by a player rising through the ranks of minor leagues and his end-of-career decline etc. are constant preoccupations for followers of our own sports.

Surely a good sports film is one that operates on more than the simplistic level of the game's rules?

[Fern Forest]

To turn this discussion around I watched Lagaan, an Indian movie about Kricket, and I totally got it. I knew absolutely nothing about the sport. And despite that I still got what was going on in every scene. It's all in the film making.

[glee]

Originally posted by Flymaster
Actually, I guess I'm asking more about Europeans and Aussies, here. Given how much US culture gets exported across the globe, and the fact that a goodly portion of our movies revolve around baseball, I wonder if a) those movies are exported at all, and b) if they have the same impact, if they make any sense, or if they do well in theaters at all.

So, EuroDopers, I ask you: Did you cry watching Field of Dreams ? Did you like The Natural? Did Major League ever get released over there? And when you were watching it, did you just ignore the baseball stuff you didn't understand? Or is it just such a common part of American culture that you've managed to pick up what's going on in a 3-2 count with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th with the game on the line?

Here in the UK we have a regular program on American sports (NFL + Major League mainly). (And there's always Meatloaf's classic 'Paradise by the dashboard light' to provoke interest!)

I understand baseball is based on rounders (simple UK children's game).

I must say that most sports movies are pretty easy to follow, even if you don't know how close the hero is to losing.

I know Field of Dreams and The Natural were released here in the UK, but I don't recall Major League.

I'll have a go at the jargon you mention:

The pitcher tries to get the batter out by throwing strikes (3 and you're out?). If he misses some defined area, it's a ball (presumably you're allowed 4 of these). So the 3-2 count is balls and strikes.

3 outs ends an innings, so 2 outs means no more mistakes.

9 innings each in a match, presumably bottom means 'near the end'.

on the line = close match, could go either way.

Do let me know how close I got.
WARNING - if you poke fun at my 'ignorance', you will be given a test on cricket. :D

[Miller]

Well, right, but you DO have to know what a second baseman is, or have a vague idea about the rules, to understand a good number of scenes. As an American, no matter how sports-phobic you are, you've picked up the gist of baseball. You understand at least the basics of baseball, and could describe the rules fairly briefly, in the sense of "There's nine innings, 3 outs an innings, 3 strikes in an out, and you have to get to the base before the ball does." Do people in other countries understand that much of baseball? Because I know I don't understand how many overs there are in a wicket, or who the flanker just tried on that drop goal.

No, I don't think you need to know anything about the sport in question to enjoy a movie about the sport. Let's take, say, Major League as an example. You can be 100% pig ignorant about baseball, and still pick up that Tom Berenger needs to hit the little white ball really hard with his stick to win the big game at the end of the movie. Movies give you plenty of other cues to figure out what's important, even if you know nothing about the sport itself.

Let me give you another example: Trading Places. This is one of my all time favorite movies. Watched it a dozen times. I still have no idea what's going on in the climactic scene on Wall Street. I understand that the two characters just made millions trading orange juice. I don't get how they did it, but I understood what they were doing and that they were successful. Same thing with sports movies. You don't need any knowledge of the sport to understand who the hero is, what his goals are, and wether or not he meets those goals. And that's what makes a good movie, no matter what the subject matter is.

[Chronos]

Bob Hope once said of Bull Durham, "It's a movie all about our national pastime, with a little bit of baseball thrown in.". As I rather suspect that other non-American countries share the same national pastime, I don't think that it would lose too much in the translation.

The thing is, you just can't make a good movie about sports. You can, however, make a good movie about something else, and put it in the context of sports. There are sports movies about sex. There are sports movies about following your dreams. There are sports movies about kids who succeed against the odds. There are sports movies about miracles. But there are no sports movies about sports.

And by the way, glee, you got all the terminology right, except that there are other ways to get an out than by strikes (for instance, if you hit the ball and someone on the other team catches it before it hits the ground, you're out), and "bottom" of an inning specifically means that it's the second half of the inning, which is when the home team is up to bat.

[jsc1953]

Originally posted by glee



I'll have a go at the jargon you mention:

The pitcher tries to get the batter out by throwing strikes (3 and you're out?). If he misses some defined area, it's a ball (presumably you're allowed 4 of these). So the 3-2 count is balls and strikes.

3 outs ends an innings, so 2 outs means no more mistakes.

9 innings each in a match, presumably bottom means 'near the end'.

on the line = close match, could go either way.

Do let me know how close I got.
WARNING - if you poke fun at my 'ignorance', you will be given a test on cricket. :D

Darn near perfect, glee. Well done.

Except for the "bottom" of an inning. An inning is divided into two halves--one where the visiting team bats (until 3 outs are recorded) and then the home team bats (until 3 outs are recorded). Referred to as the "top" and "bottom" of the inning, respectively. So each inning has a bottom. The bottom of the 9th is the last half of the last inning (unless the score is tied, and there are extra innings.)

[HPL]

Originally posted by Wendell Wagner
Westerns


Slight hijack......

Weren't some of the most famous westerns, the ones by Leone, europeon in origin?

Sorry, just got off a Spagetti Western Binge.

[psychotropic]

BTW, psychotropic, the line "There's no crying in baseball!" comes from A Leage of their Own, not Major League. [/B][/QUOTE]

You're quite right. Oops! A League Of Their Own was the movie that I enjoyed. Didn't think much of Major League.

[Charlie Tan]

Weren't some of the most famous westerns, the ones by Leone, europeon in origin?

Well, in a way.
The genre, as made in Hollywood sorta died in the late 50's early 60's. To some extent, I think it went together with social changes during the 60's too. I guess it was kinda beaten to death with endless tv-series.

But the public was still hungry for westerns in the theatres. The Italians step in, most notably with Sergio Leone. The films were shot in Spain and produced some really good stuff and some truly awful too (Trinity, anyone?). Of course, with the success of the Spagetti Western, Hollywood took part of the franchise back. But that's another story.

All truly good westerns from the 40's and 50's are Hollywood made.

[Bryan Ekers]

Some things simply don't translate. I'm Canadian and was totally mystified by the Daniel Day Lewis/Michael Caine cricket movie The Yorker was a Golden Duck (1997). Good thing I read the novelization.

[glee]

Originally posted by Chronos
The thing is, you just can't make a good movie about sports. You can, however, make a good movie about something else, and put it in the context of sports. There are sports movies about sex. There are sports movies about following your dreams. There are sports movies about kids who succeed against the odds. There are sports movies about miracles. But there are no sports movies about sports.


If there were, we'd probably call them 'recorded sports coverage' ;)

Originally posted by Chronos
And by the way, glee, you got all the terminology right, except that there are other ways to get an out than by strikes (for instance, if you hit the ball and someone on the other team catches it before it hits the ground, you're out), and "bottom" of an inning specifically means that it's the second half of the inning, which is when the home team is up to bat.

Thanks (and to jsc1953 also) for being polite!
I understand the difference between top and bottom now.
I knew about catching, because you can feel the crowd's excitement when the batter puts one in the air.

So you courteous American chaps don't have to answer questions like these:

What is the difference between a short leg and a long leg?
Why would it matter if you tried to hit a Chinaman before an lbw appeal?
Why does cricket take 5 days?*


*actually this one baffles me too.

American sports seem to be well packaged, with the comfort and enjoyment of the spectator a top priority.
And we want commentators of the quality of John Madden! :cool:

[kilus]

Well were I live in Australia every kid that went to school would have played at least one game of baseball or softball or teeball, so the average Aussie knows the core rules. Baseball films aren't really shown by many places, but most video stores pick up any sucessfull ones and lots of baseball films get shown on TV.

[clairobscur]

I never noticed any baseball movie broadcasted here on TV, nor showed in movie theaters. I assume that the movie industry and the TV broadcasters know fairly well there wouldn't be a public for these movies. So, it's not even that I don't get them...it's that they're non-existent.


However, I watched once a movie (can't remember the name) which was about a former baseball player. The story wasn't about baseball, though, but about the character of the aging player and his relation with the journalist trying to write a book about his life, so it explains why it was broadcasted. Necessarily, there was comments about baseball during the movie, and also several flash-backs of the former star playing baseball. And no, I didn't get it. I had no clue what the guy was doing. He would run and did various mysterious things and the public would cheer him for these things, but I absolutely didn't understand what it was all about. Fortunately, it wasn't necessary to enjoy the movie.

[DAVEW0071]

Let's turn this around, then.

I live in the suburbs of New York City, I'm an American born and raised, I have no problem understanding the sports depicted in Field of Dreams, 61* or A League of Their Own. Baseball is in my blood.

However, Mrs. Dave-Guy and I love to watch "Brit-coms" on PBS on Friday and Saturday evenings. Shows like Keeping Up Appearances, As Time Goes By, etc. Very entertaining. And sometimes a bit of terminology, sports-related or otherwise, causes us to wrinkle our brows, but it rarely impinges on our enjoyment of the show as a whole, or even a particular scene. Maybe we'll miss out on a joke, but....

Now...there was a British program (or should I say "programme"?) called Outside Edge that we also enjoyed. It was centered on the relationships within a cricket club, and certain terms and activities left us baffled, but we continued to enjoy the show. You see, it was a show about people, not about cricket. Granted, the people played cricket and discussed cricket, and perhaps cricket was a metaphor for life and relationships in the context of the show, but it wasn't a show about cricket (otherwise, every episode would have lasted an entire weekend, wot?).

Baseball is just the scenic dressing for any dramatic showing about people. Just as Harry Potter isn't about witchcraft and magic, but about the relationships between schoolchildren, and Gone With The Wind isn't about the American Civil War, but about deceit and love and facing adversity.

Baseball is just what happens in these movies, it's not what the movies are about.

[ianzin]

I'm in England, like Glee, and it's pretty much as he said. We can understand the baseball movies, and the basic rules of the game, but the finer points will probably always elude comprehension!

There are other features of American culture and society which crop up in movies all the time and which some Americans don't seem to appreciate are not universals. There are times when I think if I see one more sitcom or movie which revolves around 'the high school Prom' I will retch. Okay, it's not hard to work out that it's some kind of big party that high school kids can go to, but there's no direct equivalent over here and so at times I tend to think, Christ on a stick, can't you find somethng else to hang a plot on? Is there nothing else teenagers do or worry about or prepare for? Sheesh...

[Chronos]

What is the difference between a short leg and a long leg?That's easy. You can run faster if you've got a long leg than a short leg. At least, if the other one matches. If you've got one of each, I imagine that you wouldn't run very fast at all ;).

And ianzin, the Prom is a big dance, hosted by the school, at the end of the school year. It might be in the gymnasium, but nowadays it's more likely that the school rents a party center or the like. Typically, only juniors and seniors (11th and 12th grade: About 17 or 18 years old) get to go, unless you're asked by a junior or senior. Some people are heartbroken if they can't get a date, some folks just show up anyway by themselves and have fun, and some don't care and just stay home. All in all, it's a pretty good context to show teen angst, heartbreak, jealousy, drama, etc.

[jsc1953]

Originally posted by psychotropic
We do have baseball & softball here anyway and it's very similar to a game we play (mainly in primary school) called rounders.

I've heard the baseball-rounders-child's game connection many times before; it makes me feel that our beloved National Pastime is something like professional Dodge Ball. :)

[everton]

Originally posted by Chronos
That's easy. You can run faster if you've got a long leg than a short leg. At least, if the other one matches. If you've got one of each, I imagine that you wouldn't run very fast at all ;).
Very good. Now do "silly point" and "silly mid off".

[wolfman]

Let's take, say, Major League as an example. You can be 100% pig ignorant about baseball, and still pick up that Tom Berenger needs to hit the little white ball really hard with his stick to win the big game at the end of the movie.

That one scene in particular is probably better understood if you a baseball fan however. Not like it's a masterpiece of a movie in the first place, but without the subtlety that scene would lose a bit I'd imagine. The history of the 'called shot', the knock-down pitches, and the irony of an aging catcher with bad knees bunting for a hit, just seem fairly inside.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

Originally posted by ianzin
...There are times when I think if I see one more sitcom or movie which revolves around 'the high school Prom' I will retch. ..

You and me both.

[wolfman]

However, I watched once a movie (can't remember the name) which was about a former baseball player. The story wasn't about baseball, though, but about the character of the aging player and his relation with the journalist trying to write a book about his life, so it explains why it was broadcasted.

That was probably Cobb, with Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Wuhl. It was a pretty good movie, and just for background, Ty Cobb was one of the best, and most verstile players in Baseball history. He was also on of the meanest bastards to ever walk the planet, which is why he is an interesting subject.

[Miller]

That one scene in particular is probably better understood if you a baseball fan however. Not like it's a masterpiece of a movie in the first place, but without the subtlety that scene would lose a bit I'd imagine. The history of the 'called shot', the knock-down pitches, and the irony of an aging catcher with bad knees bunting for a hit, just seem fairly inside.

Oh, sure, I have no doubt dedicated baseball fans enjoy baseball movies more than people who aren't fans of the sport, but the question was wether they could enjoy it at all.

[glee]

Originally posted by everton
Very good. Now do "silly point" and "silly mid off".

Now, now!

Chronos was very polite about explaining baseball terminology, so to mess him about in return - well, it's just not cricket! :smack:

Chronos,
short leg, long leg, silly point and silly mid off are all fielding positions on a cricket field.

Do you want me to explain 'why would it matter if you tried to hit a Chinaman before an lbw appeal'?

[glee]

Originally posted by wolfman
That one scene in particular is probably better understood if you a baseball fan however. Not like it's a masterpiece of a movie in the first place, but without the subtlety that scene would lose a bit I'd imagine. The history of the 'called shot', the knock-down pitches, and the irony of an aging catcher with bad knees bunting for a hit, just seem fairly inside.


Ooooh, more baseball jargon for us foreigners!

Called shot = the batter chappie announces what he's going to do - by pointing with his 'stick'? (presumably 'thrashing the ball out of the stadium' would be especially provocative :eek: )

Knock-down pitch = this is more difficult. I know a pitch is a throw by the pitcher. But if you just block, presumably so some teammate can run, that's a bunt.
OK, I'll try 'a pitch you can't do much with.' (I'm not satisfied with that, because there's some area you've got to pitch into, but I have no other ideas.)

Aging catcher = the bloke who normally fields behind the batter is getting on a bit. ;j

Bunting for a hit = well, I defined bunt already. OK, I say a hit is when the batter makes contact with the ball. (But then any successful bunt is automatically a hit.)

OK, tell me the facts!

[jsc1953]

Originally posted by glee

Ooooh, more baseball jargon for us foreigners!

Called shot = the batter chappie announces what he's going to do - by pointing with his 'stick'? (presumably 'thrashing the ball out of the stadium' would be especially provocative :eek: )

Very good.

Knock-down pitch = this is more difficult. I know a pitch is a throw by the pitcher. But if you just block, presumably so some teammate can run, that's a bunt.
OK, I'll try 'a pitch you can't do much with.' (I'm not satisfied with that, because there's some area you've got to pitch into, but I have no other ideas.)

Good guess, but no. A knock-down pitch is a pitch intentionally thrown at the batter's head, for purposes of intimidation or retaliation. Not sporting, but it happens.

Aging catcher = the bloke who normally fields behind the batter is getting on a bit. ;j

Good.

Bunting for a hit = well, I defined bunt already. OK, I say a hit is when the batter makes contact with the ball. (But then any successful bunt is automatically a hit.)

OK, tell me the facts!
Even non-foreigners have difficulty with the definition of "hit"--it's not just hitting ball with stick; it has to be a hit that allows the batter to reach base safely. Doing this by bunting is difficult; it requires perfect placement of the bunted ball, and good speed by the batter.

[Steve Wright]

Cricket fielding positions (http://www.pontybrenin.freeserve.co.uk/cricket/). I don't claim to be any sort of cricketing expert, but I suspect the three "silly" positions are so named because they're silly places to stand - either they offer you little chance of catching a ball, or an excellent chance of catching one, very hard, in your teeth...

[glee]

Originally posted by jsc1953
Good guess, but no. A knock-down pitch is a pitch intentionally thrown at the batter's head, for purposes of intimidation or retaliation. Not sporting, but it happens.


Thanks for your explanations. :)

The equivalent of a 'knock-down pitch' in cricket is a bouncer (the ball bounces up at the batsman's body, travelling at about 90 miles per hour :eek: ). The bowler is limited in how often he can use a bouncer.
If the pitcher is judged to have deliberately hit the batter, is it a free walk to first base?

Originally posted by jsc1953
Even non-foreigners have difficulty with the definition of "hit"--it's not just hitting ball with stick; it has to be a hit that allows the batter to reach base safely. Doing this by bunting is difficult; it requires perfect placement of the bunted ball, and good speed by the batter.

Ah, Runs Batted In! (I presume)
Well because of the layout of baseball, I assume it's best for the batter to hit the ball (safely) to his right, so the throw to 4th base (home base?) is longer.
(Or to bunt so the pitcher can't field the ball quickly...)
This layout of course discriminates against left-handed batters, and I will be taking this up with the US courts later.

[jsc1953]

Originally posted by glee
If the pitcher is judged to have deliberately hit the batter, is it a free walk to first base?

If the batter is hit, intentionally or not, he is awarded first base. If the umpire feels he was hit intentionally, he can eject the pitcher from the game.

Ah, Runs Batted In! (I presume)
Well because of the layout of baseball, I assume it's best for the batter to hit the ball (safely) to his right, so the throw to 4th base (home base?) is longer.
(Or to bunt so the pitcher can't field the ball quickly...)
This layout of course discriminates against left-handed batters, and I will be taking this up with the US courts later.


Just when you were doing so well.....:)

Nothing to do with Runs Batted In.
If a ball is hit within the infield (the 90 ft square marked by the 4 bases), the batter will more often then not be put out, by a defensive player fielding the ball and throwing to first base. A ball hit to the left requires a longer throw, and therefore affords the batter a few microseconds more time to reach first base.
And actually, left-handed batters are two steps closer to first base, and therefore have a slight advantage.

[Yookeroo]

And since, as a general rule. left-handed batters hit right-handed pitchers, and since there are more right-handed pitchers in baseball, lefty hitters are in demand. There are actually a larger percentage of lefties in baseball than in the general population.

[amarinth]

Originally posted by DAVEW0071

Now...there was a British program (or should I say "programme"?) called Outside Edge that we also enjoyed. It was centered on the relationships within a cricket club, and certain terms and activities left us baffled, but we continued to enjoy the show. You see, it was a show about people, not about cricket. Granted, the people played cricket and discussed cricket, and perhaps cricket was a metaphor for life and relationships in the context of the show, but it wasn't a show about cricket (otherwise, every episode would have lasted an entire weekend, wot?). I remember that show - it was wonderful.
Not a clue as to what was happening during the game - but the actions of and reactions around the obsessed husband and the long suffering teammates and the interteam rivalries were pretty universal (even in a game where people seem to far overdress for something that's a sport.)

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally posted by glee
Well because of the layout of baseball, I assume it's best for the batter to hit the ball (safely) to his right, so the throw to 4th base (home base?) is longer.
(Or to bunt so the pitcher can't field the ball quickly...)That's almost the idea behind the squeeze play. Let's review:

Bunt (aka sacrifice bunt) - to use the bat to knock the ball down. The idea is to make it difficult for the fielders to get to the ball in time to throw out an advancing runner, usually done when there is one runner who is on first base and there are less than two outs. A successful bunt will take away a double play by advancing the runner from first to second and will most likely result in the batter being out at first.

bunt for a hit - similar to the above but there won't necessarily be anyone on base and the batter must be a fast runner (aka "have wheels").

squeeze play - like a sacrifice bunt but with a runner is on third.

[Chronos]

A bit more detail on a "sacrifice play": The usual result of such a play is that the batter gets out, but the runner(s) already on base get a chance to advance, possibly even scoring. An RBI (Run Batted In) means that at your at bat, someone managed to score. This happens automatically when you hit a home run, of course (ball hit out of the field, the other team doesn't have a chance to do anything to stop the batter and everyone on base from scoring), but it's more commonly from a single (hit that gets the batter to first base, but no farther).

And a double play is a play where the fielding team manages to get two people on the batting team out: For instance, there's a man on second base, and the batter hits a pop-up fly (the ball goes high in the air, but doesn't get very far horizontally). It's caught by the shortstop (a fielder who stands somewhere between second and third base): The batter is now out. Then, if any of the fielders tags the runner, while the runner is not on a base and the fielder has the ball, the runner is out, too. Often, this happens when the shortstop throws to the second baseman, and the 2b tags the runner trying to make it back to base.

By the way, "balls" have already been mentioned (when the pitch is outside the "strike zone" and the batter doesn't swing at it. If he does swing, then it's a strike, not a ball). glee already guessed that you get 4 of these; what happens then is that the hitter goes to first base for free (and runners on base may also advance: If there's already a guy on 1st, he goes to 2nd, etc.). Occasionally, pitchers will do this deliberately, against a very strong hitter: It might be better to let Barry Bonds get to first for free, than to risk him hitting a home run.

[The Scrivener]

Would this be an appropriate time & place for a Yank to ask for the basic procedures of cricket? I know absolutely nothing about it. I may think I have a couple of facts down, but I'm probably wrong about those, too.

BTW, various cricket leagues really starting to take off in central (mostly suburban) New Jersey, due largely to the large population of Southeast Asians who miss it. They're getting the necessary cooperation from the public park managers (for field access and the like) and everything.

First question: if you park your car at public park on a lovely fall afternoon, is it more likely to suffer a cracked window near a baseball game or a cricket match (golf courses are right out of the question!)? :D

[everton]

Scrivener, there's a thread all about cricket (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=136143) for Americans in Great Debates. Come on in any time you like.

[everton]

Originally posted by The ScrivenerFirst question: if you park your car at public park on a lovely fall afternoon, is it more likely to suffer a cracked window near a baseball game or a cricket match (golf courses are right out of the question!)?
Of course it depends on who's batting/at bat and who's bowling/pitching, but personally I wouldn't park my car anywhere within a couple of hundred yards from the wicket/plate for either game.

[The Scrivener]

Thanks, guys! I'll check it out!

[kunilou]

This is a simple game!

You throw the ball.

You hit the ball.

You catch the ball.

Got it?

[everton]

Originally posted by kunilou
This is a simple game!

You throw the ball.

You hit the ball.

You catch the ball.

Got it? Er, yeah thanks. Very helpful :rolleyes:

[The Scrivener]

Kunilou was just quoting Kevin Costner's sarcastic dialogue from Bull Durham. Of course, the character he was addressing was a complete meathead... :)

[Boo Boo Foo]

Great thread guys.

As an Aussie, all I can say is that it's a real shame North America and and the cricket playing countries don't play the same code of "bat and ball". Both baseball and cricket are really lovely games - and it would be so nice to have had a more 'inclusive' number of competing nations if you know what I mean.

May I also make a point of thanking some of the lovely Americans who've explained various technical terms regarding baseball in this thread. As I was reading them, I could really hear the love of the game in some of the posts and it occurred to me, aw shucks, if I was to write about cricket that's exactly how I would like to sound. Much appreciated!

Regards, Boo Boo!

[everton]

Originally posted by The Scrivener
Kunilou was just quoting Kevin Costner's sarcastic dialogue from Bull Durham. Of course, the character he was addressing was a complete meathead... :)I hope you mean the Tim Robbins guy was a complete meathead not me ;). Sorry kunilou, it's been a while since I saw the film.

[Kricket]

Should I be getting all hot and bothered with all the talk about me in this thread?
I mean balls, positions, fielding!

But one thing I should mention is that I have never made any movies (at least not that the public can see) and I don't chew.

[gex gex]

originally posted by Glee
Originally posted by jsc1953
Good guess, but no. A knock-down pitch is a pitch intentionally thrown at the batter's head, for purposes of intimidation or retaliation. Not sporting, but it happens.


Thanks for your explanations.

The equivalent of a 'knock-down pitch' in cricket is a bouncer (the ball bounces up at the batsman's body, travelling at about 90 miles per hour ). The bowler is limited in how often he can use a bouncer.

It seemed to me that a better comparison to the knock-down pitch would be cricket's bodyline series. It seems from the posts on the subject that a knock-down pitch is quite unsporting, while in cricket a bouncer is perfectly fair play, and quite an exciting part of the game if done well by a skilled bowler.

Baseball fans, am I right?

Cricket fans, would you agree?

(Baseballers, to fill in the blanks, the bodyline series was an infamous cricket test series between Australia and England where the Poms, unable to combat the unstoppable Australian team of the day (complete with undisputably greatest batsmen ever, Don Bradman - kinda the Babe Ruth of cricket, I suppose) began to bowl aiming to hit the batsmen rather than the wicket. It was outlawed after the series and is still viewed as a dark period in cricketing history.

(Australian bias declared, but I don't believe that I've related any of the facts too inaccurately)

[everton]

I'd breadly agree with your main point, which is that bouncers can be used as a legitimate tactic and jsc1953 has said the knock-down pitch is a deliberately intimidatory throw. I regret the regulated limitation on bouncers - there's no greater sight than an expert hooker (not what you think baseball fans) crashing a short one over the square leg boundary.

At the risk of splitting hairs I'd suggest that the comparison should cover any unfair use of the bouncer, not only the infamous 1932-3 series (http://www.abcofcricket.com/A_Legend_Is_Born/Bodyline/bodyline.htm), although I can understand why an Aussie would immediately think of it.

I don't want to hijack the thread (or defend Bodyline), but in fairness to Larwood* he always maintained that he never intended to hit anyone, even though Jardine virtually admitted that intimidation was the object of the exercise.

*Harold Larwood was the main bowler involved; Douglas Jardine was the England captain. Several Australian batsmen were hit and injured during the series, which very nearly led to a breakdown of diplomatic relations between Australia and the UK.

[Flymaster]

As the OP, I'd like to pop in again and say how fascinating it was reading this thread. I'm glad I thought of the question. :)

It seems to me that the answer is "Yes, mostly, except for the little nuances" and I suppose that makes sense, now that I think back. I've watched a soccer movie or two, and, while I imagine my soccer knowledge is above that of the average european's knowledge of baseball (I know all the rules more or less perfectly, I just don't know the history), and I've followed just fine.

As for the "knockdown pitch vs. Bodyline" debate, I'd have to chime in and say that if this Bodyline incident really did nearly lead to the breakdown of diplomatic relations, then a knockdown pitch is somewhat less severe.

There are really two levels of knockdown pitch. One is just the high and inside fastball, thrown near, but not AT the batter, to make him dive out of the way, and stand farther away from home plate, thus making it easier for the pitcher to throw pitches to the outside of the strikezone that the batter can't reach. That happens all the time, perhaps 3 or 4 times a day (in a day where the Major Leagues have 15 games being played), and is seen as a slightly dirty, but not totally frowned upon tactic. It's not something taken lightly, but it happens.

The pitch deliberately thrown at the batter, on the other hand, is a totally different story. Such a pitch is thrown maybe once every week or two (about 90 or 100 games per week), and usually results in the suspension of the pitcher, his manager, and plenty of other people who invariably get involved in the ugly brawl at the pitcher's mound (the batter often takes exception, and "charges the mound", running at the pitcher and punching him until the pitcher's teammates get their and pull them apart.

Still, neither of these would result in the breakdown of diplomatic relations if they occurred in a Toronto/New York game. It would just make the next day's game a lot more tension filled.

[everton]

Thanks for that clarification Flymaster. Bodyline was an extreme case which I s'pose is why it's so memorable.

I saw a debate on TV recently about the use of arm guards in baseball and I was amazed to hear the pitchers saying they should be banned, until they explained how it increases the batters' confidence and makes it harder for them to get the desired result from pitching inside (then it did make sense).

In cricket the batsmen have to wear lots of padding and heavy gloves - there are enough broken bones even with them. The two reasons you've given for pitching high and inside are roughly analogous to the 'acceptable' and unacceptable' versions of the bouncer gex gex and I were talking about. On the one hand the bowler is either trying to force a mistimed shot to get a catch or to push the batsman onto his back foot to get him out bowling close to his legs. The unacceptable version takes your front teeth out if you're lucky or if you're unlucky they have to give you a heart massage on the field.

I've never seen a football (soccer) film that impressed me, but I've always assumed that's because the things I love about the play are impossible to fake convincingly. Arguably the bests sports films have been made about boxing.