Jump to content

Talk:Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who said it ?

[edit]

Who coined this phrase ? None of the commentators appear to have said that and the article makes no mention of it. Tintin 01:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Hodges did.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.231.130 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 January 2006.
He didn't use that phrase during the broadcast. He might have done so at a later time, or it might have been a sportswriter's inspiration. Wahkeenah 03:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Thomson's home run, it was particularly apt Would've thought it was particularly inapt, as no-one outside the US would have known or cared.

Not so, IP address. Read what it says. It was played on Armed Forces Radio, and many Americans overseas, such as those fighting in the Korean War, would have heard it. Baseball Bugs 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the greatest of respect Bugs, the term a shot heard around the world, in sports terms, is to signify an event of such magnituted that sports fans from Buenos Aires to Sydney huddle around their radios or read it on the front page of the national press the next day. In my experience only one event has ever achieved that. That was when the USA defeated England at the 1950 World cup. The only nation that didn't sit up and take notice of that event was the United States themselves. It made the front pages of national newspapers in over forty nations. That's a true shot heard around the world. A few soldiers a long way from home, listening on their own armed forces station because the broadcasters in the countries they were stationed in didn't care about the event is hardly a shot heard around the world.

The commenter immediately above is, with all respect, being too literal. Americans have a way of assuming that everything that happens here is of significance and concern to the entire world. For many years, it was "the World Series" when there were no baseball teams South of the Ohio River or, except for St. Louis, West of the Mississippi River.

130.13.1.200 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.1.200 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the comic strip B.C. once said, the world does not revolve around the sun, it revolves around the United States. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ernest Hemingway's old fisherman and his pals down in Cuba probably would have heard it on the radio! Not exactly around the world, but far-reaching. WHPratt (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "The Shot Heard Round The World" the euphemism to describe the start of the U.S. Revolutionary War? (Or so says old School House Rock clip. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhdmDDBjco0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.125.219 (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert

[edit]

I reverted that IP address' comments due to the unsubstantiated editorial shot against baseball. If someone wants to add in the presumably factual details about the term being used in the 1950 World Cup, they could do that. I'll try to refrain from taking an equally unsubstantiated editorial shot about how boring soccer is. Oops, too late. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

explanation required

[edit]

I'm having some trouble understanding what this article says, for example:

  • "Brooklyn finished the season on a 26–22 clip". I have looked in a number of dictionaries and encyclopedias at various types of clips; the bulldog clip, paper clip, hair clip and others but I can find no mention of a 26-22 clip. I'm thinking this is possibly some reference to the size of the clip but I'm also having difficulty imagining how the whole Brooklyn Dodgers baseball team can get onto one clip or how that would affect the result of the game. Please explain.
  • "a complete-game shutout by rookie hurler Clem Labine." I am familiar with athletics in which a discus thrower is a person who throws the discus and a shot putter is a person who putts the shot, so I imagine a rookie hurler is a person who hurls rookies but I'm having trouble working out what part of a game of baseball would require him to do this. Please explain. Cottonshirtτ 14:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "clip", the writer implies "pace" or "run" or "streak." He means that thee team won 26 and lost 22 over a 48-game span. I suppose that "clip" refers to a piece clipped out of a whole season. U.S. sportswriters use it frequently. I don't agree with the choise, as 26-22 is hardly clipping. It's more like plodding. WHPratt (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I now believe that the term comes from Clipper, referring to a fast sailing ship. As I said, 26-22 is hardly clipping! WHPratt (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Hurler" is just used as a synonym for "pitcher." What he hurls is the baseball. If he's a rookie, he's in his first season of hurling. WHPratt (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

Section starts: "The 1951 Major League Baseball season was projected to be a contest between the New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, and Philadelphia Phillies."

Uhhh, this would be referring to the National League only, not the Major League Baseball season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.35.139 (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What it should actually read is "The race for the 1951 National League Pennant was projected to be a battle between the New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, and Philadelphia Phillies." ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junior390 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Just curious, as it seems there has been some disagreement about including the reference to the Shot Heard 'Round the World found in the Season 6 M*A*S*H episode. Since the edit has been proposed by many, and backed out just as many times, it would seem there is a disagreement that has supporters on both sides. Under WP:CONS, it would seem that simply reverting an edit that, in the opinion of another editor, doesn't belong on a page is not seeking consensus. It is suppressing the contribution of more than one person who think that this edit should be included on the page.

To seek a consensus, there needs to be discussion and possible compromise. So, to foster that discussion I ask the following question:

Is there a reason, other than personal opinion, why the reference to the M*A*S*H episode should not be included on this page?

Mgg4 (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit has not been "proposed by many"; a perusal of the article's edit history reveals that all of the edits in question (before yours) were made by two IPs, both of whom geolocate to the same city in South Australia, and are therefore likely the same person. The edits were reverted because the IP did not cite a source, nor attempt to explain why (s)he thought the addition was notable, despite numerous requests to do so. Edits of this type -- where the editor simply adds the material back repeatedly without explanation, refusing all invitations to discuss it -- tend to be reverted on general principle; the community dislikes that sort of arrogance, even if the material is notable and sources are available. So, thank you for initiating a discussion of the point, and for trying to cite a source; unfortunately, IMdB is specifically rejected as a reliable source in WP guidelines. There are notability issues as well: the Shot game was, in fact, mentioned during a M*A*S*H episode, but so what? If the game influenced the episode's plot, you could probably make a case for including it; but lots of "current events" were mentioned in passing during that series, and almost all such mentions fall into the category of trivia, from WP's standpoint.
A nagging problem with "in popular culture" sections is that they often degenerate into lists of unsourced trivia, and I'm sure that the numerous editors who have reverted this particular addition would tell you that they are trying to avoid seeing that happen here. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I essentially agree with what Joe said above. Most in IPC sections are unreferenced. What some editors are trying to add here has been unreferenced also or they have been using Wikipedia for the source. For the latter case, per WP:CIRCULAR, wikipedia can't be used as a source....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How could the article possibly NOT mention Don Delillo's major novel Underworld, which is entirely structured around this game? A gaping omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.90.230 (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, even when I included a proper citation to DeLillo's book in my contribution, the addition was rejected. I am puzzled by this. Purslane (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bold

[edit]

There is a wealth of precedent across Wikimedia for bolding the most notable portion of a block quote, or the most notable quote from a volume. Examples are as follows:

Italics can easily be confused with parenthetical descriptions, which is why bold is usually preferred for highlighting specifically noteworthy phrases. It should therefore be considered de rigueur to bold the four (or one) famous sentences from Russ Hodges' call. Rowsdower45 (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found time to research the above assertions, and I could find nothing to support this alleged "wealth of precedent". Quite the contrary, actually: The Manual of Style specifically says, "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text." (See WP:BOLD}. It goes on: "Whereas italics may be used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences, boldface is normally not used for this purpose." (See WP:ITAL}. So I'm changing it back. Sorry it took so long. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV Firsts

[edit]

The article says it was the first game broadcast nationwide. Reading about the three-game series, they were the first MLB games broadcast nationwide, so this game would be the *third* game broadcast nationwide 2601:647:4E01:8F9E:34A7:FA69:A272:BC64 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first two games were not televised nationally, according to cited sources, so content is correct as it stands. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources citing this. Take a look, for instance, at the Wikipedia page for "Major League Baseball Television in the 1950s": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_on_television_in_the_1950s#1951Loadedonloaded (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'sign stealing' clarification

[edit]

I added a {{clarify}} tag to the phrase 'sign stealing', but it was repeatedly reverted by @DoctorJoeE: who thinks the meaning is clear. As requested, I'm explaining the problem on the talk page. I cannot simply fix the issue myself, as I do not understand the meaning.

There's no explanation whatsoever, not even a link, as to what 'sign stealing' is. To me that phrase means the theft of road signs, which clearly isn't the case here. The surrounding text suggest it's some kind of spying on the opposing team, though what for, how it might be useful, or why it is controversial is left unsaid. There are unexplained references to 'finger signs' and 'unprotected signs' without any explanation. These terms all appear to be jargon only understandable to experts in baseball. There should be some kind of explanation for the general reader; I've therefore restored the tag. Modest Genius talk 13:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "what for, how it might be useful, or why it is controversial" aspects are not left unsaid; but those unfamiliar with baseball do deserve a more detailed explanation, which I have added. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further clarifications added. Please let me know if it is now adequately explained, and if not, what remains unclear. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's much clearer, thanks. Modest Genius talk 15:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure. Thanks for the suggestion. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Epithet"

[edit]

Epithet is not a good term. As per the Wikipedia entry on epithet, "In contemporary use, epithet often refers to an abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrase, such as a racial[2] or animal epithet." Alternate terms might be "labeled" or "nicknamed". Pollira (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the term in a real dictionary. It's appropriate. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margin

[edit]

The biggest margin was 13.5 games, 12.5 games was brought here into the article, Jan. 1, 2013!!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even after all games of August 11 Brooklyn led by 13 games, after the first game of the doubleheader that day it were 13.5 games. [1]--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

start recording when again?

[edit]

The way the tape-recording by Goldberg's mother is described doesn't make sense. "…asked his mother to tape-record the last half-inning of the radio broadcast…" assumes his mother would know when the game was going to end before it happened. The game could have ended after the top half of the ninth inning, the bottom half of the ninth inning, or after any half-inning during extra-innings.

In the 2001 article used as a source, Richard Sandomir says Goldberg "told his mother to hit the record button [when the game] reached the bottom of the ninth inning." But the game could have never reached the bottom of the ninth inning if the Giants had won after the top of the ninth. What exactly was it Goldberg, a life-long Giants fan, wanted to hear? Sandomir quotes him as saying: I knew something was going to happen. It was the third game of the playoffs. That kind of game had to be climactic, even if it was a blowout.

In other words, he wanted to hear how the game ended as it happened, whether the Giants won or lost, whether it was a blowout or not, whether "something happened" or whether it didn't. But in that case, he would have told his mother to start recording with the top of the ninth, not the bottom. I know the story's been retold that way thousands of times, but it just doesn't ring true. It's the way somebody who doesn't understand baseball would tell it. 108.20.114.62 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

Can you add a line at the top pointing to other pages with the phrase "Shot Heard Round the World"? I had never known this phrase related to baseball and was looking for it's original meaning regarding the battle of Lexington & Concord. Not having a way to get to that from here doesn't make any sense, as the latter meaning would have far more relevance than this meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedimmel (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the first nationally televised game

[edit]

The first nationally televised game was game 1 of this series, not the final game. See Jules Tygiel, "The Shot Heard Round the World," in his book Past Time: Baseball as History. My edit has been reverted, and yet there is no citation here to support this claim. Loadedonloaded (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please explain your edits in the edit summary the first time. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Loadedonloaded (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shot_Heard_%27Round_the_World_(baseball)&oldid=1209298699"