Entertainment desk
< April 10	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 11

400 sign in baseball

Resolved

In the article Wrigley Field ivy there is a picture captioned "The ivy surrounding the 400 sign" - and indeed it does shew some Boston ivy surrounding a sign that says "400". What does the sign signify? Do you get 400 points for hitting it? DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wrigley Field article, it states clearly The center field marker, which is to the right of true center field and in the middle of the quarter-circle defining the center field area, is 400 feet (121.9 m) and is the deepest point in the outfield.. Hope that helps!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't say anything about a "400 sign", and the sign in the picture doesn't say anything about it being a centre field marker, so you'll forgive me for not realising that "400" means "centre field". DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course!! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bickering. --Jayron 32 12:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Do any cricket venues post dimensions on their boundaries, or is that strictly a baseball thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, cricket pitches do not have that information. It's irrelevant. And I'm not clear really why it's relevant at Wrigley Field, but hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its purpose in baseball is to allow the players and the teams to guess how far a home run was hit, or how far a fly ball would need to be hit in order to produce a home run. There's no requirement in the rules to post dimensions, and prior to the home run craze which started in the 1920s, ballparks did not post dimensions at all... because it was pretty much irrelevant. Whether it could ever be relevant in cricket or not could depend on how much impact 4's and 6's have on a given match... and whether the fans would care about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's silly. Every shot in cricket/baseball can be measured without such archaic markers. As for 4s/6s in a match, the distance they travel is of no relevance at all. The boundary rope is the only relevance, and whether it's 50 yards or 250 yards from the crease is utterly 100% irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily silly. Some cricket fans might be interested to know how far away the boundaries are. And it's a fair bet that 50 yards from the crease is likely to yield more 6's than 250 yards. I'll agree it's merely traditional in baseball, as they have instruments now that can report the (alleged) distance traveled by a home run, to the nearest foot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, cricket fans don't care because all that matters is if it's a four or a six. Not one single cricket fan cares whether it's 50 yards or 150 yards. Plus, and I'm sure you already know this, the distant to the boundary is different whether you're hitting directly back over the bowler's head, or to the left, or the right, or behind yourself. So, no, no-one cares about the absolute distance. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have trouble proving that absolutely no one cares. However, if sufficient quantities of fans did care, there might be dimensions posted... but there aren't. One practical problem too would be where to measure it from. As for baseball, what the markers do is put an exact number on it rather than trying to guess whether it's a batters' park, a pitchers' park, or reasonably neutral. Those facts have been used in "normalizing" baseball stats over the last century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no cricket fans are interested in the "length" of the boundary. There are no practical problems measuring the distance a ball travels when hit, we have technology like Hawk-Eye to help with that. Perhaps such markers were of relevance in the 1930s, but I'm sure players arrive at venues with some knowledge as to what kind of location they're playing at and don't rely on signage to let them know whether it's a "batters' park, pitchers' park, or reasonably neutral". The sign is there for historical purposes, and is useless for any other purpose, just as why cricket pitches pay no such attention to such nonsense! The Rambling Man (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that every last cricket fan cares nothing whatsoever about how much power it might take to hit a 6 to various places at a venue. Be that as it may, the outfield distance markers in baseball serve the fans well, and are often referred to in radio and TV coverage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone is trying to convince you of anything. I'm stating as a clear fact that the distance to a cricket boundary is of no interest to a cricket fan. "Short" and "long" boundaries are natural because of the shape of a cricket ground, some grounds are larger than others, some grounds even have trees in the outfield. The obsession with stats in that regard is not something to trouble cricket fans. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you've interviewed every cricket fan. Obviously, the larger the arc of the boundary, the bigger the pitch and the harder it is to hit a 6, even if you don't know the exact size. And I'm sure there are baseball fans who care nothing about the outfield dimensions. But they are there, and have been in every major league ballpark since at least the 1930s... and they serve a purpose for the fans who don't happen to be carrying high-precision measuring tools. Meanwhile, I hope the OP understands the purpose of the outfield dimension signs/markers now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat, there is no interest in the number of feet to the boundary. After all, what difference does that make? A batsman will prefer to hit shorter boundaries, but of course the bowling and fielding will reduce those chances. In any case, there are no fans who ever talk about the length of the boundary. It also changes every time at every pitch, and from end to end. So no, it's of no relevance at all to any cricket fans. Fans don't need to carry "high-precision measuring tools", that's what Hawk-Eye and other technology that's now widely available across the globe, does for the fan. It's nice and historical that measurements are still added to baseball pitches, but it means nothing to anyone beyond nostalgia. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat, I doubt you've talked to every fan. And it's not meaningless in baseball or they wouldn't still refer to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your repeats! We don't need to "talk to every fan". It's meaningless, a throwback, a nice piece of nostalgia. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaningless in baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you've said, many times!! The Rambling Man (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The length of a hit in cricket may not be important to the game itself but there is a fair bit of interest in the bigger hits.[1] TV broadcasts will often show the distance of sixes in the coverage.[2] Hack (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, using something like Hawk-Eye, as I mentioned a couple of times already. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before high-tech tools were available, the Minnesota Twins in the 1960s pioneered an effort to measure home runs more accurately than just eye-balling it. They used tape measures to determine the distance to each row in each section, and when someone hit one out, the ushers would determine where the ball had landed and report it. Very shortly thereafter, the distance in feet was posted on the scoreboard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A four is a four and a six is a six, sometimes umpires need to refer to the technology to determine that it's definitely one or t'other, but the distance it travelled? Irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you want to know how powerful a batsman is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this part down. --Jayron 32 12:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the entire section on "Dimensions" and it should become clearer. As for "marker" vs. "sign", it's a figure painted on the wall (hence it's a sign) and it marks the distance from home plate (hence it's a marker). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's worth spelling out that the dimensions of the outfield of a baseball park are not precisely specified in the rules. So different parks will have different size and shape outfields.

This was especially true back in the days when Wrigley Field was built. ApLundell (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing the rules have done is to specify minimum distances from the plate. Of the "classic" ballparks, the only one that was truly symmetrical was Comiskey Park. Wrigley was built on a large enough block to make it symmetrical too, but it wasn't. Most of them were built to fit into whatever size of real estate they were on, resulting in asymmetrical layouts. Fenway Park, of course, is the extreme, and an architectural disaster, but it's not going away anytime soon. At the time those parks were built, the home run was not a significant factor in the game. Babe Ruth plus the post-WWI livelier ball changed all of that. Dimensions were often listed in publications, but they weren't posted on the walls until the 1920s and 1930s. Wrigley first had dimensions posted about 1934. Excessively tight foul lines were sometimes unmarked. In particular, the foul lines in the Polo Grounds and the left field line at the Los Angeles Coliseum. I think Baker Bowl was the last one to not have any dimensions posted. In all those cases, they probably figured the pitchers were intimidated enough without having a visible number to remind them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies to cricket pitches, "soccer" pitches etc. But we don't feel the need to publish their dimensions around the pitches themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're so determined and argumentative about this.

Soccer fields are supposed to be within 5yrds of their nominal length. A few don't quite make that, but they're all pretty close. I don't know too much about the history of cricket, but I notice that cricket has a much more symmetrical playing area. In baseball, especially on fields from the era of Wrigley Field, fields all had different shapes. The geometry of the outfield is defined by the distances of the two corners (Where the foul line intersects the back wall), and the farthest point from the batter, where the nominal center field marker is placed. (Wrigley Field isn't symmetrical, so actual center field is a little ways off to the side.).

I assume nowadays batters carefully study and memorize maps of all the parks in the league, and if necessary can pull them up on their phones right before entering the batter's box, but putting up signs is also a pretty reasonable courtesy that doesn't cost anybody anything.

So it wasn't ever "necessary", exactly. (It'd have been easy enough to put up maps in the dugout.) But it's useful, and isn't that enough?

ApLundell (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I described the markers as being placed "where the foul line intersects the back wall". I think this is normally true, but I notice the right distance marker at Boston's Fenway is quite a ways away from the foul line because of the weird curve of that part of the park. ApLundell (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can baseball players not look about them and see how far away the boundary is? DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they can also see a number written on a wall. --Jayron 32 12:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that cricket has a much more symmetrical playing area not really. Wickets can be moved within the boundary, some grounds have immovable objects (like trees) in their outfield... The Rambling Man (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) This seems OT and I don't want to get into the issue over publishing the dimensions on the field, but I think the comparison between baseball fields and cricket pitches and especially football pitches even true? The above seems to imply there are few or no maximum dimensions in baseball and my quick search suggests this may be true.

My understanding which seems to be supported by Football pitch is that FIFA football pitches have both minimum and maximum dimensions in both directions. I think most local FAs also follow the dimensions (or stricter) for their more organised matches. The allowed variation is quite large (notably the maximum length of the goal lines is double the minimum), but there is still fair restraint. Per our article, the limits are greater for international matches which tends to mean a lot of stadiums are set up for these tighter restrictions. The ICC also has minimum and effective maximum dimensions for Cricket fields for international matches, although the difference between minimum and maximum is even greater. AFAIK the local governing bodies try to follow the same, (although they may allow smaller fields base on local requirements). I'm not sure that there's actually anyone trying to make massive fields in baseball anyway but the rules don't seem to work the same way.

In terms of actual fields, Baseball park#Variations suggests they can be quite variable including fairly assymetrical and while this may be to do space etc limitations there tends to be a fair degree of fan demand for this so it can happen a fair amount with purpose built fields.

By comparison football pitches should ideally have reflective symmetry in both directions and as said in practice those used for more professional games don't AFAIK vary so much given the international football restrictions. (Our article also notes there was a plan to standardise but it was never implemented. Meanwhile obviously for local play people make do with what they can e.g. [3] kind of thing can happen but the size of the pitch often isn't something talked that much about.

Cricket fields can be fairly assymetrical although one of issues with cricket tends to be that in some places like NZ dedicated cricket stadiums aren't always considered feasible so the cricket field needs to fit within the seats and other uses of the stadium. The introduction of boundary ropes for safety reasons (and I guess ads for commercial reasons) obviously hasn't helped in that regard, and it does perhaps make it easier to change the size of the field. There does tend to be some fan demand particularly with T20 for smaller boundaries to encourage sixes but I'm not sure if there so that much demand for assymetrical boundaries, particularly highly irregular ones. A purist would probably prefer long boundaries either perfectly circular or an elogated oval. Local preference also affect things but the bigger variation there tends to be in the condition of the wicket rather than in the size of the field.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although there can be plenty of variations in the overall layout of a ballfield, the part that's rigidly set is the dimensions of the infield square (or "diamond"). The distance to the fences in both foul and fair territory have a lot of flexibility. In the old days that was driven by the size and shape of the piece of land the ballpark was built on. That's not much of an issue anymore, so the variations are purposeful, as you say, kind of an artificial "quaintness". There are minimum distances and recommended distances to fences, but there is generally no maximum. In the very early years there were no fences at all, and a "home run" was literally a mad dash around the bases if a batted ball got beyond the outfielders. Professionalism obviously requires fences, as visual barriers as well as to save the legs of the outfielders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Duncan, take a look at this picture[4] and, without cheating, tell us what the outfield dimensions are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the focal length of the lens used, the elevation of the camera, and where is the stereo pair? But even without that information (analogous to having two eyes), I can see which parts are nearer and which further away. And one doesn't need a number for the distance in order to judge how to hit the ball, that kind of judgement is made at a much more instinctive level based on experience. DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are at least as much for the fans as they are for the players. So why not make it easier for the fans? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone that wants to know more about the history of ballpark design, as well as some insight into the evolution of the baseball park, I highly recommend the readable and informative book Take me Out to the Ballpark by Josh Leventhal. He's a well-respected baseball historian and writer for Baseball America and has written copiously on baseball history. The book itself is short, but still detailed enough to get a great understanding of baseball park design through the ages. He updates it every few years when new major league ballparks are built. --Jayron 32 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also found Ballparks: Yesterday and Today which I have not read myself, but seems to be about the same subject, the review on Amazon indicates it may help anyone who seeks to understand more about ballpark design. --Jayron 32 18:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's original question was about winning a prize. The most famous example might be the Abe Stark sign at Ebbets Field.[5] And also note the distance markers flanking the scoreboard. Those numbers put into "stark" reality how small the right field area was at Ebbets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the hit-the-sign-and-win-a-steak one at the minor-league ballpark in Bull Durham. I've no idea whether such a sign actually existed, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had. I know there have been other "hit a home run here and win a prize" signs about. Deor (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a prop created for the movie, inspired by the once-abundant Bull Durham Tobacco signs behind outfield fences across the land. (e.g. this one behind right-center[6] at New York in 1910) The sign was kept at the field, except it was moved into foul ground and the "win steak" part was eventually replaced by the generic "Let's go Bulls!" Other minor league parks have done stuff like this. I recall one, many years ago, which had a window-glass company advertisement with a pane of glass (backed by a box to contain it if necessary) where if a batter hit a ball through the pane of glass he would win something. Sounds kind of dangerous, but the probability of hitting it was low. As for old Abe Stark, legend has it that he never had to give away even one suit, thanks to the adroit fielding by the Dodgers outfielders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked what the "400" sign meant and I don't think anyone has answered the question completely. The number 400 represents the distance from home plate to the center field wall in feet. --Thomprod (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRM was the first to answer, and it looks correct. Then the OP started arguing over the terms "sign" and "marker". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't, a barefaced lie like that is nowhere up to your usual standards of trolling Bugs. I also never said anything about "winning a prize". DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although TRM was the first to answer that 400 was a measure of distance, he didn't specify that it was measured starting from home plate. --Thomprod (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What seems obvious is not always fully obvious. That's why I have since added explanatory text to the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. "Do you get 400 points for hitting it?" which implies a prize. And did you already understand that a marker and a sign are the same thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked if it scored you points, not if it won you a prize. I presume the team with the most points wins the game, and if there's some kind of league then the team that win the league might get some sort of prize. And I wasn't arguing over signs and markers, I was pointing out an obscurity in the article. But enough, I really don't care about the silly game, I just saw something I didn't understand and asked about it. It was answered, but you and others couldn't resist the opportunity to behave like pricks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice avoidance of the direct personal attack Duncan! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the centerfield 400 marker, the article also shows the 355 marker in the left field corner. File:Wrigley Field outfield bleachers and ivy wall 2012.jpg I have now added some explanatory text to both illustrations in Wrigley Field ivy, so that maybe those who don't know baseball well won't be so bewildered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tip of home plate, right? (which isn't a bad place to measure from since batters try to stand as far back in the box as possible) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Geometrically speaking, the actual bases are the four points at the corners of the square that forms the infield. The three base "bags" and the home base "plate" represent those four points. And the "point" of home base is where the outfield dimensions are measured from. Obviously, the exact point where ball meets bat can vary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although as you know, of course, Baseball Bugs, second is placed differently.Hayttom (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The second base bag is centered on the point of second base. The other three base markers are contained fully within the square. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's 396 at Angels Stadium, 365 and 347 along the foul lines! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian MLB team(s) have feet and meters. If they didn't convert to baseball they must've become a force in world cricket, they have more people than Australia after all. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time, in the 1970s, when MLB parks in America began posting meters as well as feet. It didn't really catch on, and I think they're all strictly feet now (except for Toronto, of course). For a while the Seattle Mariners posted the equivalent in fathoms, which was cute but didn't really make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Around when was that? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this,[7] it was around 1980. I'm unable to find any pictures, but there aren't all that many pictures of the Kingdome interior on Google Images. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many prisons did the guys in Prison Break end up escaping from?

Went for like 5 seasons, how many prisons did one or both of them break out from? 2.102.184.154 (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Prison Break for the answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Gold ensemble

From what's available on YouTube, I gather "Beloe Zlato" (Russian: white gold) is a contemporary a capella ensemble of young women (possibly in their teens) singing in Russian. Performing in ordinary street clothes, they sing Russian "folk songs" though may have a broader repertoire. I haven't seen information about them outside of social media (Facebook, Instagram), but on YouTube they seem to have a following among aficionados of typically feminine white young women (per comments deploring the absence of such in degenerate Western countries). Are they mainly a folklore group, nationalists, a pop trend, or what? -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think [8] this is the same group and while I don't understand Russian, a machine translation suggests it says they meet and formed while studying at the Norilsk College of Arts and decided to bring "folk music to the masses". The defining characteristic is performing folk songs in everyday places. I think it also says they've all sung since young and want to spread a love for Russian folk songs among the youth and they've been together for 5 years. Also they're about to (or possibly have by now) release .their 3rd album. (You could always ask on WP:RDL for a better translation.) Incidentally, whoever manages their current Facebook page [9] seems fairly active and there seems to be some English, so you could always ask there for more details. (You could also have a look at their VK [10] page or this video on their official YouTube channel [11] if you could get someone to translate.) Note while we don't have an article on the school they went to, it is perhaps revealing to read about Norilsk itself. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed it is. My exposure to non-classical Russian music till now has been limited to the military genre. What a pleasant surprise, and how encouraging, to find Russian folk music promoted by members of this young generation! '-- Deborahjay (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]