Talk:Home run

Walk-off home runs

The article says: "If the home team has two outs in the inning, and the game is tied, the game will officially end either the moment the batter successfully reaches 1st base or the moment the runner touches home plate—whichever happens last." This is incomplete, as unless the bases are loaded, a batter reaching first does not end the game.

I suspect it should either say: "If the home team has two outs in the inning, and the game is tied WITH THE BASES LOADED, the game will officially end either the moment the batter successfully reaches 1st base or the moment the runner touches home plate—whichever happens last." or "If the home team has two outs in the inning, and the game is tied, the game will officially end IF A RUN IS SCORED either the moment the batter successfully reaches 1st base or the moment the runner touches home plate—whichever happens last." but I don't know enough about baseball to be sure of either. Statalyzer (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

leadoff home run

there is no article about this, even though, there are multiple pages that include the term such as ichiro Suzuki, Craig Biggio and record holder Rickey Henderson. I think is very relevant, and should include an explanation and the record list in MLB.--201.199.71.26 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing Maris that year was ...

The phrase, Pushing Maris that year was ... (as in: ... teammate Mickey Mantle; ...) - occurs again a few lines further below - seems unclear. Maybe it isn't to somebody proficient about baseball but I feel it is to the unbiased reader (it is to me, anyway). It seems to be that either it might be poor grammar or something explanatory should be added to make clear what Pushing <sb.> was ... means. (In "common" language, wouldn't one expect to read: "<sb> was pushed by ... that year"?, with the (I presume special) meaning of being "pushed" in baseball remaining to be explained (well, possibly by a link into the main article on baseball)

Well, there's no special meaning of pushed intended here (it means motivated, as into, "My mother always pushed me to succeed..."), but I agree it could be worded better. If you're pointed this out, chances are someone else is confused as well. I'll see what I can come up with. -- Matty j 23:44, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Addition to first sentence

In baseball, a home run is a base hit in which the batter is able to circle all the bases, ending at home plate and scoring a run, with no errors on the play that result in the batter achieving extra bases.

Beleive it or not, in a leage I once played in, a teammate scored an inside the park home run on a play with an error. (It was ruled a home run, but might not have by MLB rules). There was someone on first, and he was almost thrown out at home, except the catcher dropped the ball. The batter had rounded third, and decided to try for home when he saw the ball dropped. The catcher picked it up in plenty of time, and came down the line, but the batter made an excellent dive/roll/slide thing to home, and amazingly avoided the tag. As my leage didn't have official statisticians, the umps and coaches conferred, and decided that it should be ruled a home run, as the catchers error was not the cause of the second run scoring, due to the excellent dive. They couldn't give the catcher an error on the non-tag, because there was nothing to rule as an error. So, thats why I changed it. —siro χ o 12:25, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this is proper. In this example, as I read it, he should have been awarded a triple since the catcher's error -- dropping the ball -- was the reason the batter went for home in the first place. An error, by definition, can only be charged if a runner achieves an extra base as a result of the misplay -- in the case of a home run, a true home run, no further bases could possibly be achieved by any runners, and as such there is no possible way an error could be charged on the play. -- Matty j 20:38, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think User:Siroxo is right on with this...you can't give an error on a missed tag, nor can you assume an extra base on a fielder's decision. - Scooter 05:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has got it quite right. You can't give an error on a missed tag; also, there can be no error charged when the offense doesn't gain from the error. The play described is no error, as was mentioned by Scooter et al. The play in question was ruled a home run correctly, except no error should have been charged. The original language, that result in the batter achieving extra bases., is redundant according to the rules (no error could ever be charged if the misplay didn't help the batter). However, it is helpful to those who don't know the strict definition of an error. --Locarno 17:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you have is an extra base(s) via a fielder's choice. While people are right that you can't charge an error on the missed tag, there was an error on the play when the catcher dropped the ball on the attempted put out of the lead runner. Had the catcher held on to the ball, the hitter would have been unlikely to attempt home. At best, the hitter is credited with a triple and it is possible that he might only be credited with a double, depending on how quickly the outfielder was able to retrieve the ball and get in back into the infield. If there was a play on the runner at home, there I. All likelihood was a play on the runner at third, if the defense had chosen to take it. Wschart (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth, Democrat?

What's up with the Democrat vs Republican contrast between Ruth and Hoover? Was Ruth really a Democrat? Does that even matter? --feitclub 14:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

For that matter, I've always heard the Ruth rejoinder as "I had a better year than Hoover." Can anyone corroborate this? Andrew Levine 03:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

inside-the-park grand slams

I'm pretty sure there have been more than three inside-the-park grand slams in the last 50 years. http://www.answers.com/topic/inside-the-park-home-run http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?threadid=3641 These two sites suggest that the number is more like 40. I'm going to change that; anyone who has sources stating otherwise please post them. Foxmulder 16:29, August 4 2005 (UTC)

drug use prevalent in major leagues, has affected new records

there ought to be a mention of this, without convicting anyone, but recognizing that the new highs are held in question by everyone who knows anything about baseball.

I have added an article with related statistics in terms of the latest home run records and how it can be seen as a proof of steroid use. I would love to hear comments and edits Steroid Expert 23:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It's definitely a subject that should be explored, but the facts need clarification and claims need verification. I've put an {{originalresearch}} tag on the section because the one source that's there now isn't enough. A few points that stood out to me:

"50+ home run seasons started to become commonplace" - there should either be numbers backing this up or a credible source stating it.
"The anabolic steroid use controversy has played a major part in tainting" - the opinion has to go, or either has to be attributed to an credible source. You need to verify that there is a controversy, and "tainting" is a matter of opinion - has to be attributed to a notable or credible source.
"the latest records of Sosa, McGwire and Bonds as well as being theorized"- "being theorized" is a weasel phrase. You need to say what credible source is doing the theorizing.
"stricter drug testing policies that went into effect in the 2005 season." - what are these policies and how are they stricter?
"While this difference can be considered as a statistical fluke, it is a big coincidence that can taint the latest records' validity." - I deleted this last sentence because it's commentary with no factual support. Again, it either has to be a fact or an opinion of a credible or notable person. No personal commentary.

So it's quite a lot that needs to be improved, but I think the section can improve and is relevant - oherwise, I would have just deleted the section all together. I wish I were more knowledgeable about the subject, but I'd appreciate it if other editors could pull up relevant qotes. Ytny 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home run slang

Seems like half of the nicknames there don't refer to home runs, and if they do, it's not that clear. Many of them are just plays on their name or refer to their size. I'm going to delete the following names from the list:

Kong (Dave Kingman) - a play on the name "Kingman"
Two Man Swat Team Manny Ramírez and David Ortiz - a Google search doesn't bring up any result that doesn't refer to or is copied from this article.
The BB Gunners Barry Bonds and Bobby Bonilla (when both were with the Pittsburgh Pirates in the late '80s and into the early '90s - Bonds wasn't exactly a home run hitter, nickname is more a reference to their initials.
The Killer B's Craig Biggio, Jeff Bagwell, and Lance Berkman - again, this has more to do with the initial.
Big Papi (David Ortiz) - reference to his size, not home runs

I'm not sure about "Thomenator" either, since it's not in the cultural lexicon the way "Hammerin' Hank" or even "Juan Gone" is, but I'm going to leave it in. Ytny 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Don't know why "Big Papi" is still on the main page; it has to do with leadership and size, not with home runs. Nor does "Big Mac" which is a reference to size and a play on McGwire's name. A few that clearly belong but are not there are "Joltin'" Joe DiMaggio, "Hammerin'" Hank Greenberg (who preceded Hammerin' Hank Aaron by many years), Steve "Bye Bye" Balboni and "The Thumper" (Ted Williams). Plus, if you are willing to include pitchers with HR-related nicknames, John "Way Back" Wasdin. Mds001 00:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The player nicknames section has been receiving edits over the last few days, So I read the section today. After reading over the section, I read this, then read the section again, and considered what to do. Initially I was going to excise the entire section, since it is unreferenced. After some consideration though, I've decided to leave the paragraph of prose, but completely excise the list of player nicknames. In addition to being unreferenced, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts. I think that the main paragraph is informative, and can easily be referenced with some work. The list is not particularly interesting or informative though, and I think that the article is better off without it.
— Ω (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames themselves are typically easy to verify, so that's not an issue. Narrowing it to nicknames that are specifically connected with homers might work. "The Sultan of Swat" is an obvious one. The "Hammerin' Hanks" also qualify. In short, I'm inclined to agree with MDS001 and the others. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If their easy to verify, then they should be cited (heck, a B-R.com link to the player's page is better then nothing). The question is, if the information is so easy to come by, what is the basis for including it? Keep in mind that I ended up not completely removing the section. One other issue is that player nicknames are generally extremely transitory and narrow (contained within the baseball community) neologisms. The very few exceptions (such as "The Sultan of Swat") belong to extremely notable players (Babe Ruth's notability sometimes eclipses Baseball itself, after all). I can see at least that being worked into the prose. I simply don't see the utility of a list, in this case.
— Ω (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of things are more readable in bullet points than in prose. However, if the list is trimmed back to nicknames that are truly home run oriented, it might be short enough to make it prose. However, trimming it back to just home-run names would be the first step. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-added "The Sultan of Swat" to the paragraph. I think that it would be best to concentrate on citations for sentences within the paragraph, for now. The notability of what is currently in the prose is self evident to me, I'm sure it is to you, and to most other Americans, but that's beside the point. Statements of fact need to be cited... Once we have citations, it should be easy enough to add a few other nicknames, one way or another.
— Ω (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not married to that list, so we'll just see what other editors have to say. Despite having had his records broken, and despite other sluggers with colorful nicknames coming along through the years, the Babe is probably more closely associated with the home run than anyone, not just because of their quantity, but because he had a flair for the dramatic. It occurs to me that the most obvious actual home run name would be Home Run Baker, although he didn't hit all that many homers, he just picked his spots. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert,but as someone who grew up playing baseball and listening to it on the radio, I would say that "homer" is in a different class from all other slang expressions for a home run. Hence, I think it should be singled out rather than just occurring in a huge list. Kdammers (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change Homerrun to either be an article about a Singaporean film or a redirect to Homerun (film)

There is a proposal on Talk:Homerun (film) to either have Homerun be an article about the Singaporean film by that title or a redirect to Homerun (film) where the article currently resides. The current situation is that Homerun redirects to this article.

Arguments in favor of the proposal can be found at Talk:Homerun (film).

Your opinions are solicited. Please vote at Talk:Homerun (film).

--Richard 16:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of MLB content

This article purports to be about the baseball concept 'Home Run' but then skews off to talk very specifically and explicitly about a host of records and achievements that only relate to MLB baseball. All of that content should be shunted off to MLB articles and not allowed to pollute the more general Baseball articles. The MLB is but one small part of the baseball world, and in terms of wikipedia, all those records have got zero to do with the definition of what a Home Run is, so they are entirely inappropriate in this context. Comments?

I disagree with "The MLB is but one small part of the baseball world"--MLB is a very large part of the baseball world. I agree that articles should be non-MLB-centric, but to follow the general article with MLB-related info is appropriate as long as such content is encyclopedic (See WP:5, etc). --Locarno 16:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on how much of the baseball world the MLB represents because I do disagree with you on that point. As to your reference to Wikipedia's principles, I don't see anything refered to that matches with what you say, so I'm not sure what your point is. In the case of this article, its not simply that there is a small amount of related information added on the end, the majority of the article is talking about (in small part) the history and (in large part) very specific league records that apply to only one very specific set of leagues. If it is valid to include MLB Home Run records then every other league in the world can equally be included and this article becomes 100 times as large. MLB records should be in MLB articles VanJoe 13:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that ANY content is acceptable as long as it is encyclopedic and NPOV. If I were writing the article on swallows, I may choose to include information on European swallows; I don't have to also include information on African swallows--I'll leave that for another editor. I agree that it is valid to include non-MLB home run records in this article; I encourage such. Once this article gets bloated with such listings, we can split it off into one or more Home run records articles. --PSzalapski 14:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very US-centric. There's only a single mention that I can see of non-US baseball - the world record holder. I think a lot of the MLB bias stems from the usage of lots of specific examples of different types of home run - is this even necessary? Dancarney (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a U.S. game originally, and this is an English language Wikipedia and most other English language countries prefer cricket - that would explain the bias. But you are correct. This article could use a lot more non-U.S. information. I wouldn't remove any content, the information is useful and of interest, but adding non-U.S. content would be great. Kingturtle (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they stop and think about, there's a reason MLB's records for home runs and other stats may often be smaller than other leagues' records: It's because it's tougher to achieve in MLB. And why is that? Well, it's because MLB is the pinnacle of the baseball world. That's not necessarily got to do with the USA being somehow "better", it's simply got to do with money. The example I like to give is that star Japanese players come here, and washed-up American players go there. All of the other leagues around the world - America's minor leagues, America's collegiate leagues, and international leagues of all levels - all serve as "farms" to MLB. That's just the way it is. And the higher up you go on the scale, the less "extreme" the extreme values of records are likely to be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that, it could be interesting to see other records listed, provided they can be sourced. At point, Sadaharu Oh was the world record holder for home runs - a record that, I assure you, he would not have achieved in MLB. But it's still an impressive feat, and worth mentioning if it's not covered already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter which leagues are "best", this article is about the concept of the home run in general, worldwide terms. I think the article should be much closer to the one for Leg before wicket (a type of dismissal in cricket) which merely explains the rule and the history of how it came about. Things such as 3 examples of Inside-the-park home runs are just trivia. Perhaps there ought to be a separate article detailing the history of home runs in MLB, for instance? Dancarney (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Boundary (cricket) for an equivalent article written much more suitably. Dancarney (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to back to back to back home runs...

This evening, the Red Sox hit four consecutive Home Runs (in ten pitches off the same pitcher) in the bottom of the third inning against the Yankees. The record for consecutive home runs by a team is (apparently) four, last set in the NL last year by the Dodgers, and in the AL in 1964 by the Twins, and overall has only happened five times including tonight. (1963 was the last time it has happened off the same pitcher.) I think mention is warranted, but we'd need better sources than my scribblings here, which are coming from the ESPN broadcast. Any hardcore statisticians about? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this article from MLB.com is a pretty good source. --PhoenixV 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of putting in a Back-to-Back (Article should be added with all the statically data and such...) section when it happened, so I added the description into that area. Then went back and added the suggested link for the source on MLB.com. A more official editor may need to clean it up. First actual data added to Wiki (mostly just cleaned up links and such before :) )(68.14.143.194 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have the actual list of these (with the players and dates and so forth) out of the MLB record book. But I think adding it would sort of clutter this paragraph, which is pretty adequate the way it is now. The Red Sox story (note 2) on MLB has another link inside it with the same info. I might add a couple touches (I find it interesting that the first three occurrences were in '61, '63, and '64, and then nada until the Dodgers last September and the Red Sox last week), but all the little details are probably unnecessary here. Unless someone really really wants it. BTW, if you want help with the back-to-back list, the book has every occurrence of three in a row or more. Let me know. -- dakern74 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Spring Training count? Cause the Red Sox did it again just a couple of weeks ago, in a Spring Training game against Detriot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.95.247 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Biggest" stars

I realize this is probably going overboard, but with the current steroid controversy, I propose that we should consider changing "and the biggest (and best-paid) stars" to something like "and the best-paid (and most popular) stars", just to avoid any play-on-words of HR hitters being the "biggest" stars. This came to mind when looking at the picture of McGwire right next to the opening paragraph, since the size of his muscles was often commented on. 71.79.111.247 00:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on rules

Since Fence height varies by ballpark (the ballpark for the Boston Red Sox, for example, has a very tall section of the wall on the left outfield) and on some occasions the ball that hit the higher sections of the wall is called a home run. So can anyone tell me at what height does the ball has to reach on the wall (the lower section of the wall usually becomes a double) to be a home run (or is it depend on the outfielder?) K61824 01:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K61824: There is no such specification except in special instances, and that varies from ballpark to ballpark. It is standard throughout all levels of baseball and its derivatives for the entire outfield fence to be considered "in play".

Boston's Green Monster plays as does any other regular outfield wall - a batted ball striking off of the fence at any height and bouncing back onto the field is a live ball and in play (it is not a home run and the batter is not out). In most, if not all major league parks, there is a line, usually yellow, that runs along the top of the outfield fence; as far as I know, its only purpose is to be a decoration. The exception is in some parks, such as Minute Maid Park in Houston and Citizens Bank Ballpark in Philadephia, where the outfield fences are very tall or are oddly shaped. In these ballparks (there may be others, I'm not sure) a ball striking below the yellow line is in play, and a ball striking on or above it is an automatic home run. In Game 3 of the 2005 World Series, for example, the umpires missed a call on a Jason Lane home run which struck the "double" half of the wall.

There are other quirks that ballparks have, such as the "basket" which runs the length of the fair outfield wall at Wrigley Field in Chicago, which catches a good number of fly balls each year.

The only way it depends on the outfielder is whether or not he can jump high enough. :D 75.4.98.60 16:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to comment on the comparison between football "touchdown" and baseball home run, where it says that the ball only has to 'break the plane" of the outfield fence to be a home run. This is patently untrue. Outfielders who can run and jump always try to catch the ball AFTER it's gone over the fence and if they do, it's an out. I remember in particular a spectacular catch of this kind made by Otis Nixon where he had his entire arm up to the shoulder over the wall, caught the ball and landed back on the field.

Yes, that point needs clarification. I'll see what I can do. Baseball Bugs 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are home run distances measured by where the ball first lands, or where it ends up? Cubs Fan 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's actually where they think a ball would have first landed. When a ball hits an obstruction like the scoreboard at Shea Stadium or the roof of Tiger Stadium, folks get out their protractors and trigonometry charts and try to determine where it would have landed had it not hit that obstruction. That's why the numbers are so unofficial. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally true, and leads to significant exaggerations. However, the Twins have a system (dating back to the Old Met) where they actually measured the distance to each row and section. So when a ball lands in the seats, they post the distance in an exact number of feet. The Cubs did something similar for use with their "How Far Did It Fly" perennial Southwest Airlines contest. Distances otherwise tend to be exaggerated, especially by those who don't understand the aerodynamics of fly balls, which are typically headed almost straight down at the end of their flight, unless they're hit on a low line drive like Ernie Banks used to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why an asterisk for Bonds and not Big Mac or Sammy?

In my opinion, the asterisk by Bonds stating "possible steroid use" is absurd, especially if there's nothing by Sosa or McGuire. You say that about anyone on the all-time list. Hell, Babe Ruth wasn't drug tested, why not put an asterisk by his name, "possible drug use"

Darren32 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Performance-enhancing drugs didn't exist in Ruth's day, unless you want to count bootleg booze, although alcohol is a depressant, not a stimulant. However, I don't see that in the article. What, specifically, are you referring to? Baseball Bugs 06:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infield Home Run?

No, I'm not on crack. I read it somewhere that Babe Ruth used to hit infield chops so high, that in two separate ocassions he respectively hit an infield home run and triple. Can any one confirm this?

Crack of the bat? It would not be possible for even the world's fastest human to circle the bases on a Baltimore chop. Maybe on an extremely high popup that everyone lost in the sun. Baseball Bugs 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another home run category.

Shouldn't there be an article for players that have hit more than one home run in a single inning? That's a pretty rare feat in and of itself. Magglio Ordóñez just did it yesterday. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 15:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source. Baseball Bugs 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info from the 2007 Sporting News Baseball Record Book. I don't feel like listing them all, but the Garciaparra achievement is especially noteworthy. Baseball Bugs 00:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Steriods"?

One has to wonder what kind of drug that editor was on. I'm thinking a "steriod" would be a drug that allows you to hear everything in hi-fi. Baseball Bugs 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back-to-back player v. Back-to-back teammates

The article talks about consecutive Back-to-back (s) by teammates, but doesn't talk about "Back-to-back player", like Reggies's back-to-back-to-back, or consecutive home runs by plate appearances (3), in the '77 World Series. Who has to most of these? Best O Fortuna (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 is the most in any Series game. Some have hit 4 consecutive in a single (regular season) game. Back-to-back across 2 games might be found in the record books also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homers in straight games among professional players

I don't see any-thing on the record for number of straight games with homers hit (not exactly the same thing as Williams's record, if I read correctly). CNN talks about this: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/14/south-korean-sets-world-record-for-home-runs/?iref=allsearch: "On Friday [, 13 august 2010], Lee [, Dae-ho, of a Korean team] tied the world record for homers in eight straight games shared by Major League Baseball's Ken Griffey Jr., Don Mattingly and Dale Long." The next day, Lee broke the record (Ibid). Kdammers (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korean baseball is not really considered major league level, I don't think. And many major league records have been surpassed in the minors, due in part to less consistent talent levels. Joe DiMaggio is famous for his MLB record 56-game hitting streak. In the Pacific Coast League, he had a 61-game hitting streak. Minor leaguer Joe Bauman hit 72 home runs in one season, 12 above the then-record MLB total of 60. That 72 stood for nearly 50 years until Bonds hit 73 in 2001. That's not to say the Korean record is not worth mentioning, but just something that needs to be kept in perspective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but unless I'm blind, the Wik article doesn't include the major-league record or record holders for the category (Ken Griffey Jr., Don Mattingly and Dale Long according to the link). Kdammers (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

leadoff home run

there is no article about this, even though, there are multiple pages that include the term such as ichiro Suzuki, Craig Biggio and record holder Rickey Henderson. I think is very relevant, and should include an explanation and the record list in MLB.--201.199.71.26 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chart with unexplained term

The chart showing home runs per game over the years also includes a line designated as SB/G. I suppose this is stolen bases, but if it is, it should be explained. In addition, is it relevant?Kdammers (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is that it is one indication of how the increase in home runs affected strategy. Wschart (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

home run cycle

I think the home run cycle and other sections are way too long. I'm with some of the above comments that the article is filled with just way too much trivia about MLB achievements. It's almost as if every time someone sees something on Sportscenter or ESPN classic they come running to the various sports pages to add it to an article when not every bit of trivia is encyclopedic. Dancindazed (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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) 16:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Home run calls

I think there should be mention of the home run call, as many announcers have a signature call specifically for home runs, and there are of course specific instances such as Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball). I'm just not sure how to do it without it turning into a crufty list to which everyone adds their favourite home run call. --Jameboy (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added to home run cycle

Chandler Redmond hit for the home run cycle for an affiliate for the St. Louis Cardinals. 166.182.249.93 (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dinger DOES redirect here.

Dinger actually redirects here. Try using Dinger (disambiguation). 64.67.252.29 (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not, it is a disambiguation page. ... discospinster _talk 01:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]