Talk:Count (baseball)

Merge discussion - Full count

Admittedly I am a baseball neophyte but wouldn't it make more sense to merge full count into this article? A full count is just a subset of a count, so I don't see a reason for separate articles. – ukexpat (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely support a merge. The two items are intrinsically related, a redirect would bring readers here easily, and neither really has a large article, so there's enough information to support a merge. A "full count" itself isn't really encyclopedically notable to have its own article, but the count itself is. — KV5 • Talk • 14:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these two articles has any sourcing at all. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Wknight94 ^talk 15:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, ensuring that the "full count" redirect linked to the appropriate section of this page (not just the top). umrguy 42 15:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Adam Penale (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A "full" count, by any other name, is but a count.Neonblak ^talk - 14:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Source

I don't have time for now to look through it, but here's an article of interest to this page:

Timmerman T. "It Was a Thought Pitch": Personal, Situational, and Target Influences on Hit-By-Pitch Events Across Time. Journal of Applied Psychology. May 2007; 92(3): 876-884. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.162.93 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full house

Regarding these edits: I could not turn up any references to the terminology "full house" to refer to a 3–2 count. This glossary from Softball New Zealand, the governing body of softball in New Zealand, didn't list it. Although it might be a colloquial term used by some, I'm not clear there is sufficient widespread use to include it in this article. isaacl (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be sourced if included. I haven't run across anything to that effect either. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything on it either. Our glossary of baseball, however, has an entry for it, which defines it as a full count. I would consider removing the first definition from its entry if nothing can be found on the term. Seattle (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me check for accurate sources first on this, but I believe "full house" is an outdated term from around the Gehrig days. Garchy (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Count (baseball) → Count (baseball and softball) – Counts exist identically in baseball and softball. Unless we're considering softball a variety of baseball (which we very well could), the parenthetical should include the two separate sports in which this concept exists. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This seems unnecessary to me. Softball is essentially a type of baseball. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unneeded and overly-titled. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The page name should contain the essence of the concept and not try to enumerate everything that uses the concept, though "(baseball)" is needed to disambiguate. It is no disparagement to softball to hold that it uses the count from baseball. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per the opposes above. BD2412 T 20:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.