Entertainment desk
< August 5	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 6

Stealing

Baseball question—why do runners generally always steal when there is a full count when they are on first and/or second, but not when the bases are loaded? 71.146.0.138 (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want to steal home if the catcher has the ball. Stealing second or third forces the catcher to throw the ball to stop the steal. RudolfRed (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't think runners generally "go" in such situations unless there are two outs, so your premise is incorrect. (For instance, if a runner on third "takes off" on a full count with fewer than two outs and the batter strikes out, the catcher can usually tag the incoming runner out quite easily for a double play.) Of course, someone actually intending to steal a base may try to do so on any count. Deor (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant with a full count and two outs, sorry for not pointing that out. Anyway, I don't see why the triple steal in such a situation wouldn't be initiated, because the only time that the catcher would have the ball after the pitch would be when the batter strikes out or walks. 71.146.3.225 (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a full count and two out, the possibilities for the batter are limited: he can strike out, in which case the inning is over and runner(s) attempting to steal can't actually do anything; he can be put out somehow (ground out, pop up, foul bunt, etc etc), in which case the inning is also over; he can walk, in which case the runner(s) would advance anyway; or he can get a hit, which is the important part here, because in that case the runners are already in motion and have a better chance to score than if they had started closer to the base. As an example, if there are zero or one outs, and the batter hits a fly ball, and it's caught, a runner can advance, but he has to start from the base. If the fielder drops the ball (let's assume it's an outfielder for simplicity), the runner can advance, and they wouldn't have had to start from the base, but they didn't know that when the ball was hit. If there are already two outs, the runner can start advancing as soon as the pitcher starts pitching, and if the batter hits a fly ball and the outfielder misses or drops it, then the runner is far ahead of where he would have been otherwise, and may be able to score (or advance to scoring position at least). And yeah, if the bases are loaded, all three runners can start advancing early, why not? I've definitely seen that happen. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. With 2 outs and a 3-2 count on the batter, any runners who are in "force" position will go on the pitch. They've got nothing to lose, and possibly something to gain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western Rock Music Hotel California by Eagles Band Applied the Electronic Sound Effect Units to play the Lead part.

What are the electronic sound effects units applied to play the lead part of the song Hotel California by the Eagles Band? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adimathra Musician (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were two lead guitarists on that song, Don Felder, according to this page, played the accoustic lead guitar parts, and also some of electric leads, while Joe Walsh played the other electric leads. If you read through that website (some of the answers are buried on the later pages, click the "page 2" or "page 3" tabs, etc.) it covers Felder's set ups for both the accoustic and electric parts. this page from the Boss Users Group covers what Walsh used. I found both of those sites on a Google search with the phrase "effects pedals on hotel california". If you do a similar search, you may find even more information. --Jayron32 20:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic athletes are supposed to be amateurs

I had always thought that the Olympic Games were limited to amateur athletes only. In fact, I thought that that was the whole point of the Games. So, why do I see names like Roger Federer, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal, etc., as participants in the Games? Clearly, they are professionals – not amateurs – in their sports. No? What's going on with this? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Olympic_Games#Amateurism_and_professionalism Hot Stop 12:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That was news to me. So, now they allow professionals to compete against amateurs? How does that make any sense? How is that structure fair to the amateurs (who are, really, the whole point of the competitions)? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since every athlete (pro or amateur) needs to qualify, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Hot Stop 13:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? But, in the "qualification process" (i.e., preliminary competition) ... isn't it still unfair to pit a pro against an amateur? Doesn't the pro have unfair advantages? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One might ask what's the difference after all between one person in one country who can afford to practice tennis all day because they get money for winning contests versus someone in another country who can afford to practice tennis all day because the government has selected them to play tennis all day and subsidized their living expenses, though they get no actual cash to pay for their living expenses themselves. The non-contest-winners in countries that don't subsidize a lucky few don't have a chance anyway.20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Games and amateur sports explain the background. The reasons for professionalism are that people want to see the best athletes compete, and athletes need to earn a living. You have 2 options, either you ban athletes from taking any money (including for advertising and endorsements, for coaching, for exhibition matches, any free clothes/equipment they receive and wear in public, or the other dubious stipends of the sort certain communist regimes paid), or you let the best athletes take part regardless of whether they're paid. You could say it's a cynical manoeuvre for TV ratings (people want to see Roger Federer and Usain Bolt) or you could say it's an acceptance of the reality that athletes need money just to pay for training, as well as to take time off work and go to the Olympics, rather than keep amateurism as the hobby of the rich. And do Olympic athletes deserve some of US$ 1-2 billion paid for TV rights and tickets? When there's a lot of money at stake it's very hard to maintain true amateurism, and "shamateurism" is almost certainly worse than genuine professionalism. The leading bastion of amateurism at the moment is College athletics in the United States, where participants receive free educations, healthcare, training, board and lodgings, etc, but universities make huge sums out of their labor, and it's rather controversial. You'll note that almost every sport now accepts professionalism, such as tennis since 1968 and rugby union in 1995, so the Olympics are following the tide. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that after over 20 years people are still under this impression. Was the Dream Team not as famous as I thought they were? Mingmingla (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I – for one – never paid any mind to it, when I saw that professional athletes were playing. I had simply thought/assumed that it was some sort of "exhibition" game, and not a part of the "real" Olympics (competitive games). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, only the other day I was told that the bikes used by Olympic cycling teams must be available to buy in (specialist) shops. Apparently this is to allow not so rich nations (ie. without huge R&D budgets) to at least be able to buy world-beating cycle technology. This will supposedly give their very amateur teams a chance of qualifying for the games and competing agains professionals like Bradley Wiggins. Astronaut (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is football (soccer) now the only sport in which most of the leading professionals do not compete at the Olympics? Team members have to be aged 23 or under, apart from up to three over-age players in each case. The reason is apparently so as to retain the primacy of the FIFA World Cup. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was the case for baseball as well until the 2008 Olympics (it got dropped as an olympic sport afterwards). The best players were busy playing the major professional championships at the time of the Olympics, so mainly second-tier players and youngsters competed (except for Cuba, which was able to send its very best team, apart from the players it feared might defect). --Xuxl (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One some levels, boxing would also qualify under those criteria. In addition, some sports retain (or have introduced) limits on the number of individuals whom each country (Olympic committee) may enter, which has an associated dampening effect on the number of "top ten" competitors at the olympics. Plus, don't forget there are sport and disciplines which aren't at the Olympics at all (men's heptathlon, for example). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evolution from official amateurism to open professionalism began almost as soon as they were planting Brundage in the ground after his decades of rule as the IOC head. It took a while, but at this point there's no real pretense of pseudo-amateurism as there was in the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of an older Ben Hogan In CT.

This may sound odd,, however I have a picture of Ben Hogan supposedly taken in Lapham estate New canaan CT. This is a Cristmas card. As a young teenager our family rented that house on Lapham estate, New Canaan CT. I was simply told that Ben Hogan had given this card to our family in general, upon some christmas year, prior to 1974.Trying to find out if any one is looking for thgis photo, which is a Kodak from a negative. He appears to be older than say, 65 years old. Greg at (email removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.60.33 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I have removed your email address so you don't get overwhelmed by spam. Responses to your question will appear here. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in 1912, so, in 1974 he would be about 62. Can't say much about it without seeing it. Could you scan your Ben Hogan pic and post it here ? (We can help you, if you don't know how.) StuRat (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will be his centenary next Monday 13 August. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]