Talk:Merkle's Boner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This article should be blasted. It is completely retarded. If you want to have an article on Merkle's Boner, fine, but to suggest this has cursed the Cubs is rather silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.74.69 (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a very silly article as written. I trust I need not have to explain why.

What is the difference between this and the Curse of the Billy Goat? 71.183.211.135 (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure how to fix it at first glance. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Change it to "Merkle's Boner" and remove all the crap about the Cubs being cursed. I'll do that in a little while. Vidor (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Moved to Merkle's Boner NW (Talk) 17:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Curse of Fred Merkle → Merkle's Boner — This is the far more common usage when referring to this event. See comparison of Google hits for "Curse of Fred Merkle" and "Merkle's Boner"; the latter outnumbers the former by 53,000 to 3,800. The "Chicago Tribune", as noted in the story below, refers to it as Merkle's Boner. The Fred Merkle bio page calls it Merkle's Boner. So does a history of the Chicago Cubs. So does the Dickson baseball dictionary. —Vidor (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Reasoning sounds good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Support I've have always known this play as Merkle's Boner. It was a source of amusement to me during my youth. --Pgp688 (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Within the section headlined "The Boner," Cubs player Johnny Evers is identified as a shortstop. He was actually the second baseman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.125.99 (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sensitivity issues

I'd like to ask permission to change each instance of the word "boner" (copy-pasted) to "b*ner". I am a female-to-male transgender and speaking so frankly about something that I can never achieve causes me a great deal of mental anguish. Thank you in advance. 98.202.238.232 (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want to have a boner in the way it's used in this article?76.71.123.12 (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not a sensitivity issue to me, however, I agree with an opinion against using this word, based on a typical teenagers different meaning to the word. What about instead - "Merkle's Play" or "Merkle's Mistake" Wfoj2 (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not censored. This is the common name for this play. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the common name for this play, although it's noted in the article that at that time, we normally wouldn't have an appeal of this nature in a walk-off situation. Now, the unwritten rule (notice this falls to the players and their managers & coaches) is that if you're forced to advance in what would be a walk-off hit, you advance to the next base to avoid a forceout. There was a case in a July 2013 minor league game in bottom of 9th where score was tied, bases were loaded, 2 out, and the batter got an apparent base hit going to the outfield, but the runner from 1st joined in the celebration and forgot to touch 2nd base, so the defense got the ball over to that base and got that runner out in a force to end the inning. The visiting team went on to win that game in 10 innings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

OLD TIMERS GAME

How could he have played the old timers game in 1950 when the biographical article says he died in 1947? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an error in the play description, he did not turn back to the dugout. He took a right turn and headed to the clubhouse which was in centerfield. This is verifiable in "The Unfortgettable Season" book and multiple other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.250.218 (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Scoring the Play

It says "Bridwell swung at the first pitch from Pfiester, a fastball, and drilled a single into center field. McCormick ran home from third, and the game appeared to be over, a 2-1 Giants victory."

Shouldn't that say "drilled an apparent single"? Once the smoke had cleared, so to speak, Bridwell had grounded into a forceout, centerfielder to first base coach to miscellaneous to player-manager. If they still managed to credit him with a hit, that would be noteworthy. (The box score isn't on Retrosheet.org yet.) WHPratt (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Box score is there now. Still no play-by-play, but we can see that Bridwell was 0-for-4 at bat. http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1908/B09230NY11908.htm WHPratt (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Poorly Written

The article is a good description of what is known about "Merkle's Boner." Unfortunately, the discussion seems a bit rushed, even for an encyclopedia entry, and the grammar is a bit lacking. I suggest that someone edit the page to make it intelligent.

Re: Sensitivity. It is not our problem that current society thinks of a boner as something other than a huge mistake. That is what it was called, back then, and how it is known.

Re: Scoring. I agree, big picture, but I also object to using a word like "drilled" when a word like "hit" would suffice and be better understood. The entry is factually correct, as the facts (disputed) are known. Our point is that the entry is poorly written. I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squonk64 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Murphy Page Numbers

The page numbers given for the source book by Cait Murphy range from page 421-614. Is there a version of this book that actually has 600 pages? The hard cover, paperback, Kindle, Nook and Harper Collins e-book all seem to be around 400 pages.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Arnold Rothstein1921

Pittsburg

See the disambiguation on "Pittsburg." "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was officially spelled "Pittsburg" from 1890 until 1911." Hence I restored a retracted correction. WHPratt (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll let someone else revert this time. This may be a losing battle -- someone's always going to think he's being helpful with a misspelling. WHPratt (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said, it's hopeless! WHPratt (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hopeless, I said! Between speed-readers who don't note the history and what must be the PittsburgH (remember the "H") chamber of commerce, we're stuck with it. WHPratt (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it now reads "... the Pittsburgh (then spelled Pittsburg) Pirates ... ." Not a bad solution to the problem. I just wonder when someone will stick an "h" on the second Pittsburg, or maybe delete the parenthetical as being awkward. I will be hopeful. WHPratt (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I was right. The alternate spelling is purged from history. Don't want to confuse anybody, eh? WHPratt (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

CHC-PIT “makeup” game

As the following three pages make clear (CHC, PIT, NYG), the standings before the October 4 “makeup” game between the Cubs and Pirates were: Giants: 98-55, Pirates: 98-55, Cubs: 97-55. Why would a makeup game have to be forced in that situation? Was it simply supposed to be the last game of the regular season, or was it a normal makeup that wasn’t forced at all? Esszet (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1