Talk:Baseball positions
Baseball Start‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
A History Section is Warranted
The schema of numbering the positions is unusual enough -- with 1-2 being vertical, 3-4-5 being right to left, 7-8-9 being left to right, and 6 being out of place -- that an explanation of the historical reasons would be worth including in this article. I surmise that SS is #6 and out of order because traditionally the SS was more of a roving shallow outfielder. That should be in the text of the article. And why does the infield go R-L while the outfield goes L-R? Even knowing what I know about the SS, the numbers would make more sense like:
- 7 8 9
- 6(SS)
- 3 4 5
- 2(P)
- 1(C)
So why are they where they are? Some historian out there must know.
Fielding positions
67.35.253.89 has added "There are 10 (previously 9) fielding positions... each position has an associated number (from 1 to 9)". --- Why 10? Ojw 12:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have no idea, unless someone somehow thought that DH was a fielding position. I changed it back to 9.Kevin M Marshall 13:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why is third numbered five instead of six? If you follow the progression third should be number six, and short number five, this would lead to more continuity in how the bases are represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.19.130 (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- In the 1870s, each baseman generally guarded his base, and the shortstop was a roving fielder who might be positioned anywhere. (Bob Schaeffer, a SABR expert on 19th century baseball lectured on this subject.) When the numbering scheme evolved, the shortstop was neither infielder nor outfielder. WHPratt (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt
Cleanup Batter?
I have no idea why someone thought this was a "baseball position". It should be deleted. T. Wong 03:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Some softball games have 4 outfielders.
It says "-holden usherwood" at the end of the Roles of infielders section. Was that section taken from somewhere, or is there a poorly cited and unnecessary quote, or is someone trying to claim credit for their own work? --ADoS 71.192.64.235 03:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)