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.)
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.
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.
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!)? 
Scrivener, there’s a thread all about cricket for Americans in Great Debates. Come on in any time you like.
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.
Thanks, guys! I’ll check it out!
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:
Kunilou was just quoting Kevin Costner’s sarcastic dialogue from Bull Durham. Of course, the character he was addressing was a complete meathead… 
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!
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.
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.
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)
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, 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.
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.
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.