MovieChat Forums > Pitch (2016) Discussion > Pitch Needs A Baseball Fact Checker!!

Pitch Needs A Baseball Fact Checker!!

posted 7 years ago by rjrmemorabilia2
29 replies | jump to latest

I love the Pitch because it's so true to baseball. But it irritates me when they don't bother checking into real baseball facts. Amelia should know that Willie can't use the name "Screwgie" for a sports bar. But if the writers don't know, then how can she? I've been a baseball fan my entire life. Section C of my paper is Sports and D contains the funnies. Most you remember the Tog McGraw, the Phillies relief pitcher and screwball specialist who started out with the Mets and then won a World Series with the Phillies. (He's also Tim's father). I can still see him jumping off the mound, fists clinched in the air when he got that last out in the World Series for the Phillies. He also coined the phrase, "You gotta believe!". Anyway, during his time in Philadelphia, he came up with the idea for a comic strip based on a baseball relief pitcher. It was nationally syndicated for quite awhile and called "Screwgie" Because of the comic strip, I'm 99.9% sure that the name "Screwgie" is copyrighted and off limits to Willie or anybody else - unless the pay a licensing fee. The writers and Amelia should know that - but apparently they don't and it would fit perfectly into the story.

This isn't the only time in the previous 9 episodes they've missed baseball facts or details that could've written been better if somebody a bit more knowlegable or a baseball fact checker proofread the scripts.

[–] JaeBianca 7 years ago

Amelia isn't a baseball expert, so she wouldn't be expected to know any of what you've written. Obviously the writers know, otherwise they wouldn't have chosen such an awful name for anything. It was probably their way of building an excuse for Ginny and Blip's wife to back out.

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

But Amelia's a business expert and part of her expertise should be in copyrights. But using the excuse as copyright infringment and not wanting to pay an exhorbanot amount for licensing fees for the name "Screwgie" gives them a valid baseball reason for backing out of the deal as well. But apparently, the writers never bothered researching the name.

[–] JaeBianca 7 years ago

My point is that "Screwgie" is an odd enough name that the writers are probably well aware of its history. To a non-sports fanatic, it sounds like an awful and random name for a bar, but a baseball fan might get it and want to hang out there.

That said, Evelyn (Blip's wife) should be the one to question the need for licensing, since she has sports knowledge and a business background.

[–] haroldbaines 7 years ago

I'm 99.9% sure that the name "Screwgie" is copyrighted and off limits to Willie or anybody else - unless the pay a licensing fee. The writers and Amelia should know that - but apparently they don't and it would fit perfectly into the story.

Can't use the name because of McGraw's 70's comic strip? That's absurd.

The word "Screwgie" is not owned by McGraw, it's a common name for a screwball.

That'd be like saying they can't call it "curve ball" because there was a movie called that.

Of course they can use it.

Seems like people love complaining in the forum for the sake of complaining.

[–] poit57 7 years ago

Most you remember the Tog McGraw

Was that a typo, or are you really that hung up on the name "Screwgie" without knowing that the pitcher's nickname was "Tug" McGraw.

I'm 99.9% sure that the name "Screwgie" is copyrighted and off limits to Willie or anybody else - unless the pay a licensing fee.

You are confusing copyright with trademark protection. As far as Will's bar/restaurant is concerned, copyright law would come into play if Will reproduced copies of the comic strip and associated art without permission in order to advertise the business.

Trademark law could apply if the character of Screwgie's general likeness was used to make the public think the restaurant and comic strip are related entities. Businesses in different industries can separately trademark the same name. Delta is the name of both a company that makes faucets and an airline. Microsoft and Hyundai both have a trademark on "Excel" - one for computer software and the other for a car model.

In this case, "Screwgie" could be used by one company as the name of a restaurant and by a completely separate company as the name of a comic strip character.

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

Can I ask another question? How can the name itself not e copyrighted? Vince McMahon always copyright's his wrestler's names so they can't be used in other alliances. The first one I can think of is Lisa Marie Varrone. She was Tara in the WWE. But Vince Mcmahon copyrighted the name and she couldn't use it when she went to TNA, so they switched her in ring name to Tara. Wouldn't the same kind of thing apply to the name "Screwgie"? It wouldn't just the image of the comic strip character. It would also be the name itself - unless a licensing fee was paid to use it.

I can give you another example too. I used to sell old radio shows and one that I dearly loved was the Phil Harris - Alice Faye Show. Phil's side kick was Frankie Remley, a left handed guitar player. The real left handed, guitar playing Frankie Remley was a member of Phil Harris' Orchestra on The Jack Benny Show. Eliot Lewis played him on the radio show and Frankie Remley was paid a fee so they could use his name. Easy way to make money too. But after about 4 seasqons, he got greedy and wanted more money for the use of his name. The producers of the Phil Harris - Alice Faye Show refused to pay and the Frankie Remley named was dropped and renamed Eliot Lewis, the name of the actor who'd been playing him. Wouldn't rthe same exact thing apply to the name "Screwgie"? Because names can also be trademarked and copyrighted.

[–] poit57 7 years ago

This document should answer your question as it applies in the US.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf

Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright. The U.S. Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words such as:

• Names of products or services
• Names of businesses, organizations, or groups (including the names of performing groups)
• Pseudonyms of individuals (including pen or stage names)
• Titles of works
• Catchwords, catchphrases, mottoes, slogans, or short advertising expressions
• Listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas. When a recipe or formula is accompanied by an explanation or directions, the text directions may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula itself remains uncopyrightable.

The federal trademark statute covers trademarks and service marks—words, phrases, symbols, or designs that distinguish the goods or services of one party from those of another. The Copyright Office has no role in these matters.

My understanding of the wrestlers' names and "Frankie Remley" that you described above would be that the names were trademarked for those characters. Eliot Lewis would be portraying a trademarked character based on a real life person in this case.

From what I read elsewhere, the US Patent and Trademark Office will look at whether consumers will be confused by the source of a product. Unless the Screwgie's restaurant/bar is using images from the comic strip in advertising, I don't think a logical person would connect a comic character with food service.

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

Interesting distinction between copyrighted and trademarked. You said, I don't think a logical person would connect a comic character with food service. They would if they were a baseball fan, a Phillies fan or a Tug McGraw fan from the 1980's who read the funnies pages every day. Besides "Screwgie" we only ever had one other sports related comic strip, Tank MacNamara which was also great. He was a former pro football player, turned sports anchor. I truly miss both strips.

There's also examples where they've missed obvious baseball facts too. Like when Dick Enberg's doing the play by play on Levon Durate's first major league home run. He knew it was wrong when he read it and should've called it to the writer's attention. Levon started the game and Dick Enberg says "He hit's a homer run in his very first Major League at bat!". That's categorically impossible because he bats 5th, Laweson clean up. It would've been his third at bat. A fact checker or Dick Enberg himself could've fixed the dialogue immediately by saying "Walks don't count as at bata and Levon was issued free passes during his first two times in a Major League batter's box." Then he calls Levon's homer run and says, "Duarte just crushed the ball and deliver a 4 bagger in his "first official" Major League at bat. That would've been correct. They way they wrote it and what Dick Enberg said was completely wrong. To a die hard baseball fan like me, it was an obvious error with an easy fix. The reason it annoys me so much is that the shows so true where baseball's concerned and then they go and do something dumb like that.

I'll give you one other example. Remember Rita Wilson's psychologist character? The writer's should've NEVER made her a military psychologist. Her character should've been a sports psychologist instead and news of Ginny seeing a shrink should've been leaked to the press - maybe by one of her team mates who still dislikes her. Then John Smoltz, who's does the play by play with Joe Buck sees the leaked story and asks Lou if he can talk to Ginny. If you don't know, whenever John Smoltz played for the Braves, he went to a sports psychologist himself. So John Smoltz better than anybody else would've had a good idea of Ginny's emotional problems. But I'll bet the writers didn't even know about John Smoltz's session with his sports psychologists. But just look how much even better that episode would've been with Rita Wilson if she'd been a sports psychologist. John Smoltz finds out that Ginny's seeing her and becomes kind of a second counselor for her. It would've tied everything together so beautifully. John Smoltz could've even offered Ginny a n occasional pitching tip or two and continued checking in with her from time to time.

[–] tonyd79 7 years ago

What? Why would he say first official at bat. For a diehard baseball fan, you sure are confusing plate appearances with at bats. First at bat means the first at bat. A player can have many plate appearances before an at bat. You are wrong in your analysis and would be adding more words for no reason.

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

No I'm not. Leveon Duarte bats 5th and started the game, while Mike Lawson hits 4th. His first at bat would've been no later than the second inning. Dick Enberg's play-by-play clearly states that it's the 6th inning "and in his first major league at bat Levon Durate hits a home run". That's impossible and totally wrong because it would've been no less than his 3rd at bat. Had Dick Enberg said "In his first "official major league at bat" then the terminology would've been correct. There's only way that his home run in the 6th could've qualified as his first major league at bat. If he was walked in his first two plate appearances, then he would've still wouldn't havehad his first "official at bat" because walks of any kind aren't counted as at bats.

It also wouldn't have been his "first official plate appearance" either because Levon bats 5th. So that phrasing wouldn't have worked either.

Whenever Levon stepped up to the plate in the 6th and hit the home run, it would've been his third at bat overall, but first "official" one because neither of his walks would've counted as at bats. However, Dick Enberg didn't say that. He said it was his very first major league at bat, which was impossible and he knew that the copy he was reading from was wrong. He had to and I'm surprised he didn't call it to their attention .

[–] Wilde_2015 7 years ago

OP pulled this nonsense out of his/her rear end. Nobody can copyright the name of a pitch. This is completely asinine made up crap. Are you really this stupid or are you trolling all of us?

You play very fast and loose with the facts. This is the same poster who made a completely false claim that a MLB team had signed two female players: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5500158/board/nest/261934086?ref_=tt_bd_6

Incidentally, somebody also said this scenario is preposterous. Whomever posted that doesn't read their sports pages very closely. About three months back, either the Dodgers or the Giants signed two female players - an outfielder and a pitcher to minor league contracts. They're the first two women to ever be signed by a Major League baseball team. So maybe there is a "Ginny" or two "Ginny's" waiting for their chance to make it to the "show".

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

It's very obvious that you NEVER read the comic strip. The name of the main character in Tug McGraw's former comic strip is "Screwgie". His name and likeness can most defintely be copyrighted and probably is.

And there were two women signed - one was a pitcher and the other an outfielder. I don't remember their names. But it was a West Coast team they both signed with. The information is extremely pertinent and I'll see if I can find it.

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

I made a mistake. The two women were signed by an Independent team, Sonoma. Here's a link to a really good article about. Maybe one or hopefully both of them will become a "Ginny's"! http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/06/sonoma-stompers-kelsie-whitmore-stacy-piagno-history-women-baseball

[–] vegasf1 7 years ago

The last day of the trade deadline is at the end of July not August. Are the writers idiots?

[–] poit57 7 years ago

They mentioned that Lawson cleared wavers, so he could be traded after the July 31 deadline. Unless I missed something contradicting the trade deadline elsewhere, they got that part right.

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

There's two different trade deadlines. The one you're referring to in July keeps players available to teams vfor gthe rest of the season. The one they referred to on September 1 was for a team's play off roster.

[–] kjperes13 7 years ago

FYI, the comic strip was spelled "Scroogie."

[–] poit57 7 years ago

I was just about to mention this after finding a paperback print of the comic strip on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Scroogie-Tug-McGraw/dp/0451069617

That is just another way to distinguish this restaurant venture from a decades old comic character without infringing on any trademarks.

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

What's in question is the name itself and whether or not Tug McGraws' estate owns it. And the fact that this could be dropped right into the story about the restaurant. But the writers don't seem to have a clue about the comic strip. If the writers who are supposed to be well versed in baseball facts don't know about Scroogie - then how can Amelia or Evelyn know? One of the two of them should be aware that there's possible trouble associated with the name. If Tug McGraw's estate does own the name, it couldn't be used without some sort of fee being paid and that's a perfect fit in the story arc they're doing.

The episode last night was terrific! But they missed one very important detail there too. Every team, in every sport has a group of team physicians. It was a numbers cruncher that went to Oscar and told him about the potential of an injury to Ginny's arm. Blip was right to speak up because of watching her pitch in September. However, he isn't Dr. Blip. The ONLY people associated with the team that are qualified to make a decision on the physical condition of Ginny's arm are the team doctors. But they were never even called or consulted! That was truly a dumb mistake in an otherwise sensational episode

[–] poit57 7 years ago

What's in question is the name itself and whether or not Tug McGraws' estate owns it.

The name itself cannot be "owned" because copyright doesn't cover names and titles, as previously discussed in this thread. This attorney wrote out a detailed explanation of how a trademark and copyright law could apply to a character.

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/characters.html

As depicted in the show, the restaurant "Screwgie's" makes no use of any depiction of the character "Scroogie" that Tug McGraw created. This is a complete non-issue for any of the television writers, much less the show's characters, to even be concerned about.

Now, I'm not saying there aren't other issues with baseball facts, but an outdated comic strip where the trademark could have expired decades ago is not one of them.

I am a Texas Rangers fan. The score ticker at the bottom of the screen in one episode earlier this season showed the Rangers winning a game in Texas and having a second game scheduled later that night in California. These flaws are fun to point out, but it doesn't really hurt my enjoyment of the show.

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

But the reason the writer's haven't used the comic strip reference, is because they apparently don't know about it. But if they did, (and a fact checker would) that would fit right into the ongoing story line about the restaurant and add yet another roadblock that would need to be checked in to.

[–] ThePenguinn 7 years ago

It's a fictional series. There's never been a Padres catcher named Mike Lawson either.

My top 150ish http://www.imdb.com/list/ls072051346/?publish=save

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

But the baseball facts are supposed to be accurate,. It's what keeps the show real for die hard baseball fans. Dick Enberg said something that I thought was wrong during his play by play too. But I haven't checked for accuracy yet.

I believe it was during the 7th inning of Ginny's near no hitter when he said, "there's never been a no hitter thrown in San Diego Padres history". I immediately wondered if that was actually true. Clay Kirby took one to the 9th inning and then Preston Gomez pulled him for a pinch hitter! But I really thought somebody like Randy Jones would've thrown one for San Diego.

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

I just checked and that was correct - the sand Diego Padres haven't ever had a no hitter. But when he said that, a mention of Clay Kirby's near no hitter should've been included. Preston Gomez was crucified for pulling for the pinch hitter. But he did have a reason - Clay Kirby was losing.

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

There was also something else in the last episode that I found annoying. Ginny was only leading 1 - 0, when a first baseman in an 0 - 30 slump comes to bat with runners. There's no way ANY manager in baseball would've let him hit. Why Al didn't pull him for a pinch hitter is beyond me. Had a person that really knew the ins and outs of managing proof read that scene, they would have said the same thing - "If you want to keep this real, pull the first baseman for a pinch hitter". Al, should've brought in Levon Duarte to pinch hit, left him in the game to catch and moved Mike Lawson to first. He could've still made the no hit saving catch. But if he does it from first, he would've been right in front of Rachel. One little glance at her after he catches the ball (I know he did the beard tug) would've been perfect.

There's also something during the first episode which was missed that John Smoltz would've defintley called attention to during his play by play analysis. Joe Buck would've brought it up too. Do you remember a starting pitcher from St. Louis by the name of Rick Ankiel? During a game against the Atlanta Braves, he did the exact same thing that Ginny did when she threw her first 10 pitches. John Smoltz was there and watched the kid when he did. There's no way he would've forgotten Rick Ankiel. When Ginny throws are 9th pitch is when he says that his heart's breaking for Ginny. That's also the exact time that Rick Ankiel should've been mentioned and had it been the Fox Game Of The Week, I'm certain he would have. But had I been the writer, scripting the scene I wouldn't have written any dialogue for John Smoltz. Instead, I would've talk to him prior to shooting the scene, reminded him about Rick Ankiel and asked him to b ring him into the play by play around Ginny's 8th or 9th pitch. If he would've spoken about Rick Ankiel unscripted and off the top of his head, it would've been just like real play by play analysis.

If you're wondering w what happened to Rick Ankiel, he was also a helluva hitter. Because St. Louis could never harness his wildness, they converted him to an outfielder. He later played for Kansas City and Atlanta. Playing for the Braves is yet another why John Smoltz would've know exactly who Rick Ankiel is.

[–] rkevinb-06980 7 years ago

One thing you need to realize with TV shows, and movies for that matter, the scenes are not shot in order usually.
Some of the play by play I would think, was just recorded in a recording studio or maybe even just over the phone if it wasn't on-cam.
The real life announcers may not have even had a full script, just the dialog they needed to read. So they very easily may not have had an entire script to read over and "fact check"

[–] rjrmemorabilia2 7 years ago

I know. For one, Castle's scenes were never shot in order either. But according to Pitch's co-creators, the scripts were completed in advance, so an editor and baseball fact checker would've had the opportunity to fine tune them. There's two things in the first episode that a baseball fact checker and script editor could've fixed. Remember when Blip and Tommy get into their argument? Blip says, "We weren't exactly winning with your 5 - 9 record. At that point, the line was fine. But during the bean ball episode, it's stated that Tommy's hand/finger was broken in April. Need I tell you, that if a pitcher has his or her hand broken in April, there's NO WAY he or she's going to have 14 starts - much less a 5 - 9 record. A good proof reader would've spotted that mistake.

They also could've used a much better line when Tommy glares an at Ginny and says, "There's 23 teams learning that trick pitch of yours and as soon As I'm reactivated from the DL, you're going to be shipped back to the minors". Had I been the writer or editor, Ginny's next line would've been - Yeah Tommy? Carl Hubbell road his screwball right to Cooperstown!" Then they get into their fight.

If they had a script editor or baseball fact checker, it would make an already great show even greater.

[–] haroldbaines 7 years ago

I believe it was during the 7th inning of Ginny's near no hitter when he said, "there's never been a no hitter thrown in San Diego Padres history". I immediately wondered if that was actually true. Clay Kirby took one to the 9th inning and then Preston Gomez pulled him for a pinch hitter! But I really thought somebody like Randy Jones would've thrown one for San Diego.

That is 100% true and there's lots of stuff like this that they do on this show that I like. The people who wrote this know baseball.

One instance is when they were going to trade Mike Lawson - they had to do it before midnight on August 31 or he would not be eligible for the playoffs on his new team. And he has to clear waivers first. All this is absolutely real.

I think this is a great show.

The ONLY thing I think they got wrong was when she got to the Majors, there's only ONE person she played in the minors with. I don't think they thought this one out too much. There'd be a few people on the team she played in the minors with.

[–] cmedytrgdy 7 years ago

Rule #1 of correcting people is to be right,

1st of all, his name is TUG not TOG (I assume a typo) Secondly, names are only copywritten for a specific type of product or company and sometimes only for a region. For example, Asme supermarket doesn't prevent having an Acme Dog Food.

There is a Joe's pizza every mile in America. A unique name liek Pepsi can be global unless Mike Pepsi wants a Pepsi pizza place, but he still might need permission especially if he serves Coke

Screwgie is a type of pitch. It's now part of the nomanclature of baseball.

I suppose if you can believe that a woman can pitch in the Majors, in this alternate universe there may not even have been a Tug McGraw