Talk:Inside pitching

	This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Baseball Low‑importance Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge proposal

Per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, I propose merging Inside pitching into Pitcher § Pitching in a game. I think the content in Inside pitching can easily be explained in the context of Pitching in a game, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Pitching. BX (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose, nothing wrong with keeping a variety of articles on the important parts of the game. There are many topics involved in hitting, pitching, and fielding, and many, like this one, seem unique enough for stand-alone articles. The topic is notable and familiar to baseball fans, so familiar that the title of a major baseball magazine alludes to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support current article is barely a stub, and can be covered in a different article. A redirect can help readers get to the correct page for this topic. Natg 19 (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It already is at the correct page. If you need to add links, summary descriptors in other articles, etc., please do that, but removing pages of known topics doesn't seem the way to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's literally a single paragraph. It can easily be merged. Frankly, having a separate article comes off as a glossary entry, not a valid separate article. Strongly support merge. oknazevad (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support: this article is 1 paragraph with 1 reference, and I don't think it is possible to add much more content on this subject given how specific it is. I would be in favor of eventually having a pitching strategy article that covers this, as well as other facets of pitching such as Lefty-righty switch, Power pitcher, Intentional walk, etc. For now, a merge makes the most sense. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- this borders on WP:NOTDICT territory. A pitching strategy article is a better idea. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I concur with Randy Kryn that this article represents an important part of the game. Not every short article is useless, and this article provides some insight. That being said, if this article is merged with Pitcher, I strongly suggest that Intentional walk be kept as it is, as while inside pitching refers to an unwritten strategy that is widely practiced among players, intentional walks are an officially defined play by the MLB rules. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Intentional base on balls is not part of this merge proposal and is not presently under discussion anywhere. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Notice that this page and term is not as yet even mentioned in the section that the nomination proposes, where a link to this page would bring it more views and possibly editors willing to improve it. It meets GNG as a stand-alone topic if all mentions of it in newspapers and baseball broadcasts were taken into account, as it is familiar to baseball fans and commentators, so much so that an inside baseball magazine is named for it. Maybe your concern about intentional walk being merged may hint at Wikipedia's need for the balancing article to this one: Outside pitch or Outside pitching (both red links as of this writing). Sammy Sosa was a sucker for the low outside pitch, seems he could never pass one up and when he hit them he golfed them out of the park. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a merge proposal, not a redirect proposal. If this merge proposal is approved, then the content will be merged into the target--it doesn't already have to be there. If this meets GNG, then please link to those sources. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]