Talk:Power pitcher

Merger

The following discussion is a concluded merger debate of the proposal. 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 debate was the nomination No consensus (3 for merger, 2 against). Article was subsequently nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power pitcher where discussion on this matter will reach a conclusion. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

yes Cuvette 22:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a few hours or maybe a day to respond. This is a work in progress. Make a decision in about 2 or 3 days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you actually disagree with the merge or do you just think it was done too quickly? I'm still in favor of it, for what it's worth. Friday (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think power pitcher, control pitcher, groundball pitcher, flyball pitcher, starting pitcher, relief pitcher, setup man, middle reliever closing pitcher, ace (baseball) and other pitcher types should all have separate articles with a template similar to Template:Baseball pitches. Merging them will discourage development of such articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 02:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative to each of these (and other similar terms) being treated as separate articles, they could be (and most already are) entries in the List of baseball jargon, which is an existing article within the Category: Glossaries. There you can find a suitable short definition, with an explanation or illustration of usage (and in some cases with references) and many cross-references to other terminology. Many of the terms in that glossary are linked to a "Main" article when such articles exist; but most don't need one.--Mack2 01:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Baseball pitcher I guess is what I have in mind. Would this be useful?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 02:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pitcher doesn't have a lot of content, and a good chunk of what is there are just lists. I'd suggest adding a section there on types of pitchers. Judging from a couple of the articles you linked to above, some of the content in each one will be comparing and contrasting them with other types of pitchers. In cases like that, having them together in one article seems useful. If it gets long, perhaps they could be split out into a "types of pitchers" article but still stay together. Friday (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Which articles in the template are you suggesting should be merged?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tony. For starters let's merge power pitcher and ace into pitcher. cheers. Cuvette 14:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty wierd that of all the types of pitcher listed the only existing article you want to merge is power pitcher. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are different types of pitchers in the same way that there are different positions: left fielder, right fielder, center fielder, first baseman, shortstop, etc. They all do one thing: field, yet they all do it differently. Shortstops and first baseman field ground balls, the LF, RF, and CFs all field flyballs and ground balls through the infield. Control pitchers throw for accuracy, power pitchers throw for strikeouts, starting pitchers pitch for distance, relief pitchers pitch a lot less for quick outs. Set-up men are there to protect the lead... they all do different jobs, and we have different articles for the different infield and outfield positions, so I don't think there should be any reason to not have different articles for the different type of pitchers who all play differently. Ksy92003(talk) 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't really good examples. Shortstop and first base are different positions. Power pitchers and control pitchers play ONE position. It makes no sense to have multiple articles about a position just because play it different. It'd be the same as making an article First baseman that hits with power or Wide receiver that makes one-handed catches. They all do the same thing, they just go about it a little differently. This is obviously worth discussing at the pitcher article, but it is not worth having multiple articles.►Chris Nelson 22:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is a concluded merger debate. 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.

Comments on merger

I missed the AfD but still, I'll throw in my two cents. I don't think it makes sense to keep the article as is. The terminology "power pitcher" only truly makes sense in opposition to "control pitcher". Someone with no background as a baseball connaisseur is unlikely to get the right idea by reading this article. A single article such as power pitcher/control pitcher would be a more natural choice and would avoid undue redundancy. Moreover, there's a lot of seriously misleading content in the two articles:

• young pitchers are all on fairly strict pitch counts nowadays, whether they are power or control pitchers
• the sentence "The care which some of the old time power pitchers took with their arms allowed for long careers and further opportunity after they stopped paying." does not make sense (even if you correct the typo "paying" -> "playing".
• control pitchers don't succeed solely because they avoid walks. They succeed because they don't throw flat curveballs in the middle of the strikezone. Maddux is the ultimate control pitcher, yet he still has 3,253 career strikeouts.
• what's this about "perspiration" being one of the keys to power pitching? This reads like utter nonsense and seems to imply that Nolan Ryan's superior knowledge of how to sweat properly allowed him to be successful. I suppose what is meant here is that throwing a 100mph fastball requires a lot of hard work. I'm sure it does, but so does throwing a knuckleball: this is completely unrelated to power pitching.
• all in all, the articles don't read like baseball science but more like baseball mythology. I suspect this is in part because they are supported by sports columns which are often more human-interest than solid, documented analysis. But merging the two articles in an article discussing pitching philosophies, pitching techniques, what makes a baseball pitcher successful, etc would help avoid these issues. Pascal.Tesson 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I concur that Fireballer should be merged here. However, I think control pitcher should be separate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Genetics, mechanics, and perspiration

The problem with the third paragraph is that it's unclear what it actually means. Did Sherrington come up with this concept? Who are the "experts in physics and kinetics"? What is meant by the twice-mentioned "perfect rhythm"? Because the Dallas Morning News article does not appear to be available online, (it was published in 1989) the section cannot be rewritten in a more meaningful way. One could imagine that the article hypothesizes that a given style of pitching (mechanics) should be determined by one's body type (genetics) and that a player should therefore employ a training program specific for that style (perspiration). I would certainly be willing to rewrite the section if someone can verify that the reference actually says this. Feezo (Talk) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)