Talk:Extra innings

Longest World Series game
Gosh, how quickly facts get skewed; in this case, just a typo, but anyone checking up on this online will find the article on Fox stating "Boston Red Sox against Brooklyn in 1914" but Baseball Almanac page on the 1914 WS doesn't list a 14-inning game; this San Francisco Giants page gives the correct year. Bill 11:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Original research, etc.
I removed some uncited original research the other day and was reverted. I can only assume this was an accident, as the reverting editor is well established, understands WP policy on sourcing and didn't respond when I asked about the edit on his talk page. I'll go ahead and take the material out again. If there's any objection, I hope it can be addressed here first. — Bdb484 (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I assumed your deletions were vandalism at first. Your best argument would be that the information is too trivial or too detailed. There's no question it's factual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look at what you deleted:

Two minor consequences of this situation are that
 * It is impossible for the home team to win an extra-inning game by more than 4 runs, while there is no limit on the margin of victory for the visiting team. If the home team takes a lead in extra innings, then the game immediately ends. The maximum margin of victory would occur on a grand slam home run that breaks a tie. True by definition.
 * The rules defining a "save" make it impossible for a home team pitcher to earn a save in extra innings, because it would require the home team to be leading going into the top of the inning - but in extra innings, that would mean the home team has already won the game, at the end of the previous inning. A home team pitcher in extra innings can only achieve a win or loss, not a save. However, an extra-inning win for the visiting team often results in a save, provided the conditions for a save are met: for example, scoring 3 or fewer runs in the top of the inning, and bringing in a new pitcher in the bottom of the inning. True by definition.

Cricket The concept of extra innings does not exist in cricket: a match that ends with both sides all out with an identical number of runs is a tie. Due to the high-scoring nature of the game, tied matches are very uncommon, having occurred only twice in the history of Test cricket and rarely in other levels of the game. Much more common is a draw, which occurs if no result is obtained before the scheduled end of the match. '''Assuming this is factually correct, I don't see a reason to exclude it. The term "innings" is used in both baseball and cricket.'''

←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would assume that a deletion with an edit summary detailing various policy violations was vandalism? As you probably know already, the standard for inclusion is not "truth," it's verifiability. None of this is verified, which is why it needs to come out. If you're really this attached to everything, go ahead and insert some inlines. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm stunned. I have to assume you've never seen a baseball game. "None of it's verified?" You want I should cite the baseball rules book, chapter and verse? I could do that if necessary. As far as the cricket info, that's likely covered in the cricket articles, and the rules could be cited here also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To summarize, from the 9th inning onward, if the team batting last takes the lead, the game is over at that point. The exception is that a home run includes all the runs scored. It didn't used to be that way. Babe Ruth hit 715 in his career by modern reckoning, not 714 - but one of them came at a time when a home run didn't count if a hit of 3 bases or less was all that was required to drive in the winning run. And for the same reason, a pitcher for the team batting last cannot possibly get a "save" in extra innings, because if his team takes the lead the game is over and there's nothing to "save". That's not "original research", that's basic baseball knowledge that novice readers might be unaware of. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Explaining baseball to me is going to be a waste of time, especially when I already understand the concepts. I'm having trouble believing that an editor as experienced and productive as you has not yet come across WP policy on verifiability. If you really haven't, you can read it here. If since I read it last, they've added an exception for things that the two of us happen to have learned in Little League, let me know and I'll apologize.
 * Taking cited information and extrapolating to determine its possible consequences does constitute original research (in the Wikipedia sense, at least). Again, if it's really that important and relevant, I'm sure you have some reliable sources that you can turn to for references.
 * If you want to continue with the feigned incredulity, I guess that's fine, but you're still going to need citations. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's just that things that are obvious don't typically need references. But I can cite the rules book if that's what you want. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point, but I don't agree that this content is that obvious. There probably aren't a lot of Hall of Famers coming here to learn about the consequences of extra innings. Since we're dealing with the uninitiated, plenty of readers can be expected not to understand what a save is, let alone which pitcher can achieve one in extra innings. Those are the people for whom we need citations.
 * I also just noticed that the text says "The maximum margin of victory would occur on a grand slam home run that breaks a tie." That should probably be amended to explicitly qualify it as applying only to the home team. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This must be wrong ...
"The longest game by innings in Major League Baseball was a 1-1 tie in the National League between the Boston Braves and Brooklyn Dodgers in 26 innings, at Braves Field in Boston on May 1, 1920. It had become too dark to see the ball (fields did not have lights yet and the sun was setting), and the game was considered a draw. Remarkably, by modern standards, the game time was only 3 hours and 50 minutes. The game had started at 3:00 p.m., as was the custom in those days, and it was approaching 10:00 p.m. the next day when the game ended. Home plate umpire Barry McCormick decided to call the game when he observed lights appearing in the windows of buildings across the Charles River."

It looks as if a sentence got dropped in here. The 1920 game beginning at 3 p.m. and running short of four hours wouldn't have extended to 10 p.m. nor to the next day. WHPratt (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are certainly right. The nonsensical edit was one of four made by 70.171.67.104 on June 16; the first three were reverted by Mikehillman the following day, but this one was overlooked until you caught it. Now corrected. JudahH (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This must be wrong also...
The article makes to incompatible statements: "On April 15, 1968, the Houston Astros defeated the Mets 1-0 in a 24-inning game at the Houston Astrodome. The 6-hour, 6-min. contest, which ended with the Astros' Bob Aspromonte hitting a grounder through the legs of Mets shortstop Al Weis in the bottom of the 24th, remains the longest shutout game in Major League history" AND "The longest scoreless period within a completed game came on August 1, 1918, when the Pittsburgh Pirates and Boston Braves remained scoreless through 20 innings before the Pirates scored two runs in the top of the 21st and held on for the 2-0 victory." If the final score of the Astros/Mets game was 1-0 after 24 innings, then the game would have been scoreless for 23 innings, which is longer than the 20 innings of the Pirates/Braves game.

Shouldn't the statement about the Pirates/Braves game be deleted or at least qualified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradGad (talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Extra innings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140813034018/http://www.baseballexplained.com to http://www.baseballexplained.com
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/features/experts/07_18_01.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)